= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Sorting Pebbles Into Correct Heaps - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (100)
Sorry, I usually do try to avoid that, but in this case I didn't see how to form that sentence without using the word "should" because it's traditional in "as well X should". Keep in mind that according to C++ namespacing conventions, something inside a namespace has literally nothing to do with its meaning in any other namespace.
No apology is needed, certainly not to me; I generally treat "should" and similar words as 2-place predicates in the first place. (Well, really, N-place predicates.)
I was just startled and decided to ask.
I think of them as two-place predicates, but with one of them curried by default indexically, much like in a member function in C++
foomeansthis->foounless otherwise specified. (I already made that point in the second edit to this comment.)Yeah, that makes sense as far as it goes, but I find that humans aren't consistent about their defaulting rules. For example, if I say "X is right" to someone, there's no particular reason to believe they'll unpack it the way I packed it.
That can be all right if all I want to do is align myself with the X-endorsing side... it doesn't really matter what they understand, then, as long as it's in favor of X.
But if I want to communicate something more detailed than that, making context explicit is a good habit to get into.
Even with the disadvantage of sometimes coming across as condescending, or even often coming across as condescending to particular people, this is excellent advice.