On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which
> > would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a
> > sentence to another officer (Registrar?)
>
> Perhaps just remove
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which
> would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a
> sentence to another officer (Registrar?)
Perhaps just remove the requirement that switches be tracked by a
On 11/07/2011 06:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> scshunt wrote:
>
>> Proposal: What? (AI=1)
>> {{{
>> Repeal Rule 2353 (The Conductor).
>> [All switches must be tracked]
>> }}}
>
> The point is, if we create a new switch and a new officer, but forget
> to specify that the latter tracks the former (this
scshunt wrote:
> Proposal: What? (AI=1)
> {{{
> Repeal Rule 2353 (The Conductor).
> [All switches must be tracked]
> }}}
The point is, if we create a new switch and a new officer, but forget
to specify that the latter tracks the former (this has actually
happened at least once), then R2353 preven
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:53 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 wrote:
> > > You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
> > > in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run forever.
> >
> > Yes
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:53 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 wrote:
> > You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
> > in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run forever.
>
> Yes you can.
Hmm, indeed. I thought G. and I put s
On 11/07/2011 01:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 wrote:
>> You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
>> in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run forever.
>
> Yes you can.
Yup, see for example the former (2011-07-19 omd).
n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 wrote:
> You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
> in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run forever.
Yes you can.
-scshunt
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 13:42 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> On 11/06/2011 09:11 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In general I think a better question is whether you can evaluate
> > complex expressions with promises without requiring complicated
> > naming schemes or complicated individual messages that cou
On 11/06/2011 09:11 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> In general I think a better question is whether you can evaluate
> complex expressions with promises without requiring complicated
> naming schemes or complicated individual messages that could be
> thrown out as unclear, relying instead on emergent
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In a few of the more cutthroat and/or fast-paced asset-trading contests
> I've run I've set up a similar mechanic (to avoid the trivial "I'll
> trade you one Green for a Yellow." "Sure here's the Green". "haha I
> lied no Yellow!") Nice to h
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:25 -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 09:51 -0500, Tanner Swett wrote:
> >> Raison d'être: I recently learned about STM, so I want to use it
> >> everywhere.
> >
> > B Nomic had this rule for ages.
>
> Or
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 09:51 -0500, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> Raison d'être: I recently learned about STM, so I want to use it everywhere.
>
> B Nomic had this rule for ages.
Or rather, we thought it did.
- teucer
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 09:51 -0500, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Raison d'être: I recently learned about STM, so I want to use it everywhere.
B Nomic had this rule for ages. I rather like it, and it wasn't useless.
I suggest that once any wording bugs are ironed out, you propose it.
--
Alex Smith
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
> A transaction is a sequence of events defined as such by the rules. A
> sequence of events that takes place "atomically" is a transaction. A
> transaction can include another transaction as one of its steps; apart
> from this, transactions always occur se
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> postmortem arguments: i believe the word "ambiguous" is ambiguous. it
> could mean "having multiple interpretations, all objectively
> possible", which would mean my identity is not ambiguous, or "having
> multiple interpretations, all subjectively pos
Raison d'être: I recently learned about STM, so I want to use it everywhere.
Proposal, AI = 1, "Software Transactional Memory":
{Create a power-1 rule, titled "Acidic Transactions", with the following text:
A transaction is a sequence of events defined as such by the rules. A
sequence of events
postmortem arguments: i believe the word "ambiguous" is ambiguous. it
could mean "having multiple interpretations, all objectively
possible", which would mean my identity is not ambiguous, or "having
multiple interpretations, all subjectively possible (that is, not
actually known to be wrong)", whi
18 matches
Mail list logo
