Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> # from Michael G Schwern
> # on Wednesday 05 December 2007 05:47:
>
>>> Perhaps a general sort of MAYBE namespace in TAP would be a nice
>>> addition.
>> Is this a joke? I hope it's a joke.
>
> Do I look like I'm joking? >:-|
>
> As it is, we're talking about detecting/reporting a 3rd thing, which
> only increases the resolution by 50%. If there are really $n, perhaps
> just jump straight to $n and skip that "4th, 5th, 6th, ..." process?
>
> You don't have to call it MAYBE -- is that what makes it hard to take
> seriously?
Yes. It makes my trick "ambiguity in testing is bad" knee act up. I'll go
tie my leg down and reread the proposal.
--
I am somewhat preoccupied telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down.
-- Vaarsuvius, "Order of the Stick"
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html
