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

On 7/10/24 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 2:42 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).
>

 If I don't say pure function then Richard tries to get away
with cheating. I stopped saying it so that people that do not
know what a pure function is wouldn't get confused.
 

And then you try to cheat by having you no longer declare pure function do the non-pure action of trying to write to output.
Pure functions can not try to influence the world in any way but their returned value. ALL output involves somewhere the affecting of state that isn't part of the claimed pure function (unless it hold the output internally until it returns, but then it didn't "report" it until it ends).