[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field
|
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
|
Subject: |
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field |
|
Date: |
Sun, 02 Jan 2022 07:25:13 -0500 |
Hi Liliana,
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> Am Samstag, dem 01.01.2022 um 15:19 -0500 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> Hi Liliana,
>>
>> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Am Freitag, dem 31.12.2021 um 20:41 -0500 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> > > I disagree with the last line above. What makes you think that
>> > > I'm presupposing that the tag does change?
>> > >
>> > > There's a difference between "presupposing that the tag does
>> > > change" and "not assuming that the tag will not change". Do you
>> > > see the difference?
>> > I'm pretty sure ¬assume(¬X) = assume(¬¬X) in this concept.
> To correct my own typo here, I meant context, not concept.
>
>> No, that's certainly false. On the left-hand side of that equation
>> there is an absence of any assumptions, and on the right-hand side
>> there is the assumption that ¬¬X is true.
>>
>> Perhaps something is getting lost in translation between our
>> languages.
Repeating myself: our difficulties understanding each other on this
point might be due a translation issue. Earlier, you wrote:
> And here I disagree. This reasoning presupposes that we have to ensure
> that the package still points to the same commit if the tag changes,
> which itself presupposes that the tag does change.
and I replied (quoted above) "I disagree with the last line above".
However, I'll note that a single-word substitution would eliminate my
objection. If you substitute "might change" or "could change" in place
of "does change" in the text above above, then I would more-or-less
agree with what you wrote.
In English, the phrases "could change" and "might change" indicate a
/possibility/ of change. In other words, they indicate an absence of
knowledge about whether change will occur.
On the other hand, "does change" suggests to my ears (as a native
English speaker) that change is /known to occur/. In other words, if
you say "X does change" and then X is observed to remain constant over
some suitably long time interval, that would call into question the
veracity of your words.
To give an example from the Scheme programming language, if you showed
me the following code template:
(let ((LST '(1 2 3)))
<body>)
I would say "LST could change". I would *not* say "LST does change".
With this in mind, here are your words again:
> And here I disagree. This reasoning presupposes that we have to ensure
> that the package still points to the same commit if the tag changes,
> which itself presupposes that the tag does change.
In the last line, you're telling me that my reasoning "presupposes that
the tag does change", which to my ears suggests that you think I'm
assuming that _every_ tag will be mutated sooner or later.
If, instead, the last line above read: "which itself presupposes that
the tag *could* change", that essentially means that I'm preparing for
the /possibility/ of change, which is true.
What do you think?
Regards,
Mark
--
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, (continued)
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2022/01/01
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Mark H Weaver, 2022/01/01
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Bengt Richter, 2022/01/01
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/01/03