From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f6c360ce344b2364 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.241.162 with SMTP id wj2mr1247573pbc.2.1341281481195; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:11:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: l9ni10736pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: My Invention of "Bug Sort". Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:11:16 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <3852c348-a728-44ed-b065-c8a596c1e235@googlegroups.com><698085ff-6ca3-4a0e-b963-11bdcf11e6b5@googlegroups.com> <1u9ig9nnen59q$.ajozwlsekr7l.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1341281480 10451 69.95.181.76 (3 Jul 2012 02:11:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 02:11:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2012-07-02T21:11:16-05:00 List-Id: "Simon Wright" wrote in message news:m21ukzywy4.fsf@pushface.org... > "Randy Brukardt" writes: ... >> This is the definition of "strict weak ordering", it is described as >> precisely as possible. There's nothing really here for users; I don't >> think >> its possible to define this informally and have it make any sense. > > As Niklas has noted, the implementer doesn't provide the ordering > function and can't control it. The only people who need to decide > whether the ordering function is OK are the developers (which is the > group I meant by "users"; the users of the compiler). > > It may be necessary to understand this definition if you are a compiler > writer, but there are going to be a lot of developers who will have real > trouble with it. Including me (I was a physicist, not a > mathematician). I think the Standard would be better without the last > sentence of (5); give us a reference if you like. We only can refer to a very limited number of references in the Standard, and our reference of choice for mathematics terms didn't include this one. In addition, we found at least three different names for this concept, and some confusion as to exactly how it is defined, so we felt it was necessary to define it formally in the Standard. I'm pretty sure that this definition was copied verbatim from some reference. The Standard has to walk a serious tightrope, of both being accessible to mere mortals, as well as being precise. It's not always possible to do both. (We've been leaning more toward precise in recent versions, especially because of the efforts of professional nit-pickers like Adam Beneschan.) Randy.