On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 07:47:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathaniel J. Smith:
>
> > This is where "key idea 2" comes in again. Let's define an
> > equivalence relation ~, as:
> >for all x and y that are not equal to #, x ~ y iff x = y.
> >for all x, # ~ x is always true.
> > Or
* Nathaniel J. Smith:
> This is where "key idea 2" comes in again. Let's define an
> equivalence relation ~, as:
>for all x and y that are not equal to #, x ~ y iff x = y.
>for all x, # ~ x is always true.
> Or in words: every normal value is "similar" to itself, plus, # is
> similar to _
On 1/12/07, Justin Patrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/12/07, Nathaniel J. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Example 2 (super bonus edition)
> ===
>
> A more wacky example is:
>
> a
> / \
> b* b*
>/ \ / \
> c* b c*
>
> Here we have t
On 1/12/07, Nathaniel J. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Example 2 (super bonus edition)
===
A more wacky example is:
a
/ \
b* b*
/ \ / \
c* b c*
Here we have two people who independently set the value to b, which
then makes an accide
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 03:00 -0800, Nathaniel J. Smith wrote:
> ...
>
> Deterministic merging
> =
Beautiful! There's just one point I didn't follow, though.
> But, magically, with deterministic *-merge, all orders work the same
> -- it even turns out to be possible to merge two
So, I've been thinking -- always dangerous -- about merging again,
originally motivated by the discussion about the operational
transformation properties, and in particular the discovery that
*-merge is _not_ associative. The example is:
a* b*
|\ / \
| X \
|/ \ \
c* a b
