Re: QT4CG meeting 119 draft minutes, 29 April 2025

Hello,

Dimitre provided the following corrections to last week’s minutes.

> * DN: I want to thank MK for the analysis. If we just have to vote for this PR, I think the question is wrong. First, it is devisive. This is lose-lose. (Scribe failed to capture an analogy about user interfaces.)

Replace (Scribe failed…interfaces.) with:

  It is like asking the user to click on a single radio-button, when in fact the correct interface would be to present them with several check-boxes, each of which should be dealt with independently from the others.

> * DN: The claim that this breaks the principle of substitutability:
>
> if (function-arity($f) eq 1) then [ $x ]
>     else if ($x instance of array(*)) then $x
>     else array { $x }
>
> * DN: Is wrong.

Added:

 … DN asserted that in the particular case where a function is expecting as input a sequence of items, and it is provided with a single array, this array is exactly one item of the expected sequence - as it should be! - and thus there is no violation of any expectation or of the substitutability principle.

> * DN: Having both functions would be redundant. Would that be bad?

Added:

  + … DN enumerated several examples from biology to high-tech where redundancy is a good and necessary feature and argued that redundancy is necessary for specialization.

I will publish the updated minutes with the agenda for tommorrow’s meeting.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica

Received on Monday, 5 May 2025 10:08:57 UTC