Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben agrees

On 7/10/24 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-09 11:29:20 +0000, Richard Damon said:
 

On 7/9/24 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-09 01:30:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>

On 7/8/24 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

>

>
When you need groceries you cannot say that you
don't need groceries until AFTER you get more groceries.
>

>
Which is just Red Herring, as I am not a program, and the program is not me.
>

>
Free will does not make lies into truth.
If HHH reports that DDD does not need to abort
DDD before HHH aborts DDD then HHH is a liar.

>
How can HHH "report" something while it is still running?

>
If HHH is not a pure function it can have side effects while still
running. A side effect can "report".
>

>
But he keeps on insting that HHH *IS* a pure function, and that we are stupid if we forget that when he forgets to keep it in the description because HE is allowed to be sloppy, but we can't take benefit from that.

 In such situations I may point out that OP did not require pure function
(or whatever he forgot to require).
 

Yes, he might make such a claim, but if you use the fact that did specify pure function that time to show him wrong he will answer that of course it must be a pure function, that has always been in the requirements.
IF it can report via non-pure methods, then it can short-cut the recursion with the static and be able to run to completion.
Either way, it is wrong.