From be31f381c4f9706ef391ba5eb7f14412e3e1e348 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://meep.pl/" Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:51:12 +0000 Subject: Added a comment: Ah, the barber paradox --- .../comment_1_2136618e3515d0ac6369a41f1934ec2a._comment | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/design/assistant/blog/day_98__preferred_content/comment_1_2136618e3515d0ac6369a41f1934ec2a._comment diff --git a/doc/design/assistant/blog/day_98__preferred_content/comment_1_2136618e3515d0ac6369a41f1934ec2a._comment b/doc/design/assistant/blog/day_98__preferred_content/comment_1_2136618e3515d0ac6369a41f1934ec2a._comment new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b0fcd8c79 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/design/assistant/blog/day_98__preferred_content/comment_1_2136618e3515d0ac6369a41f1934ec2a._comment @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="http://meep.pl/" + ip="193.23.174.18" + subject="Ah, the barber paradox" + date="2012-10-05T06:51:11Z" + content=""" +Nice. Would (not in=here) be the simplest paradoxical expression? + +Is just disregarding the target repo completely during checks a possibility? This would interpret (not copies=trusted:X) as \"not in X *other* trusted repositories, no matter whether we are trusted or not\", and (not in=here) just as \"true\". I think this should generally arrive at the same results as the option 2., but by definition of the expression meaing, not by rewriting. + +Alternative 3 (or is my wording different enough to be 3a?) - check that the invariant \"we have all the known files matching our PCE and only these files\" would hold after an operation before actually performing it - could be bistable if done both for gets and drops: + +* (not in=here) and we do not have the file -> get thinks \"if we get it, we have a file not matching the PCE\" -> get does not get it; +* (not in=here) and we do have the file -> drop thinks \"if we drop it, there exists a file matching the PCE which we miss\" -> drop does not drop it. + +This is not necessarily bad. Checking just for drops should be monostable, I guess, but doesn't it look a bit arbitrary? (Though it would be again equivalent to option 2, wouldn't it? So maybe not that arbitrary.) +"""]] -- cgit v1.2.3