[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: *Still further Clarif. re inside/contents (was: Re: Surplus meaning & anthills (was: Re: FURTHER Clarif. re inside/contents
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: *Still further Clarif. re inside/contents (was: Re: Surplus meaning & anthills (was: Re: FURTHER Clarif. re inside/contents
- From: Mark-Jason Dominus <mjd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:47:59 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:51:01 +0900." <188.8.131.52.19981104205101.00f23c50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
> Hi. Sorry, I impulsively sent without proofing again.
> >I am not talking about d.2. I am talking about d.contents.
> >d.2 was not anywhere in your picture.
> Right. That's what I meant.
> With this note I am sending again as attachments
> my crummy sketches to explain this.
> Study the pix and see if it becomes clear why.
I've seen them before, and it's still not clear why.
> - Picture 1: THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT
> - Picture 2: WITH ADDITIONAL EXTRANEOUS CONNECTIONS,
> IGNORED BY THE SYSTEM
If the user wants `additional extraneous links', why don't they make
them in an additional extraneous dimension, instead of making them in
d.contents, which has a system-imposed semantics? That seems to me
like the simplest way to make sure that the system ignores them. Then
you don't need a rule about how a negward connection in a totally
different dmiension somehow nullifies the effect of a link.
> >I thought that you said that d was not part of the contents of A, even
> >though c-d.
> Correct. The negward connection B-d on d.inside
> ends downward interpretation of the contents list.
Yes, I understand that you said that. My reply says that I think that
you're making a mistake.
Here's Figure 1:
>>> d.inside vvv d.contents
A - C
B - D
A - C
B - D
In figure 1, C is in A and D is in B.
In figure 2, C is in A and D is in B.
You say that in figure 2, D is *not* in A.
I said, ``Why not? The user made C-D for a reason. Your rule tells
ZigZag to ignore the link from C-D in figure 2. You want ZZ to behave
the same way whether the C-D link is present or not. But this
disables the user by ignoring the links that they have made.''
> >I said that you were mistaken, because the user made the
> >C-D link on purpose and ZigZag has no right to disregard that.
> Then the user has to disconnect B-D, because it ends the list.
And what if they want D to be in B as well as in A?
> * * * The idea is to be as permissive as possible. Users can
> do what they like, as long as they understand what the rules are.
There has to be a collaboration between ZZ and the user, because ZZ
provides the basic interpretation and meaning of the structure that
the user builds.
> Woe betide the cleverness of the partially informed! (And I
> ought to know.) * * *
I've done the best I can can to inform myself. If you'd like to
inform me further, please do.