Re: [lmi] Strategy for Halloween release

[Greg Chicares]

On 2015-10-10 20:06, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:57:34 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> GC> On 2015-10-09 18:12, Greg Chicares wrote:
> GC> [...]
> GC> > assert consistent run order across all cells:
> GC> >   https://github.com/vadz/lmi/pull/1/files?w=1
> GC> >   (useful starting point for ensuring input consistency for group 
> quotes)
> GC> 
> GC> Committed 20151010T1930Z, revision 6346.
> 
>  Thank you, I've updated https://github.com/vadz/lmi/pull/3 and will base
> the is_okay_to_run_group_quote when it's finally ready (I don't promise it
> for "today" any longer) on this code too.

Can I first sneak in Kim's patch that swaps two "Summary" items?

> GC> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought parentheses had become unnecessary
> GC> in code like
> GC>   std::cout << "The number is " << (n + 1) << std::endl;
> 
>  Yes, they're unnecessary but IMHO make things more clear. Of course, I'm
> also one of those strange people who find "n + 1" more clear than "1 + n"...

I still think in APL, where
  1 + 3 × 4
is thirteen (twelve plus one), but
  3 × 4 + 1
is fifteen (five times three). C's execution order still puzzles me.

It pained me to step outside origin zero. I was tempted to write a
function to map
  0 -> "first"
  1 -> "second"
...
  8 -> "ninth"
  9 -> "10th"
  j -> itoa(1+j) + std::string("th")
but decided I didn't have enough time to restore order to the universe.
(And that sketch is incomplete--e.g., for j=21 or j=32.)

> GC> I created a trivial census with three cells, changing the run order in the
> GC> third cell. Formerly, this would have "worked" silently. Now, running it 
> in
> GC> the GUI triggers an error message. So does running it at the command line:
> GC> 
> GC> /opt/lmi/bin[0]$./lmi_cli_shared --accept --ash_nazg 
> --data_path=/opt/lmi/data --file=/opt/lmi/eraseme/run_order.cns
> GC> Case-default run order 'Life by life' differs from run order 'Month by 
> month' of cell number 3. Make this consistent before running illustrations.
> GC> [file /lmi/src/lmi/illustrator.cpp, line 261]
> 
>  Yes, I should have probably mentioned that I tested this as well. I'm not
> sure if I should have added (nor where/how) a unit test verifying this...

Unfortunately, lmi doesn't have a framework for tests that blow up.
But this code might go a decade without any change, so it's not too
hard to test manually that frequently.