Talk:User defined pipe and redirection operators: Difference between revisions
Talk:User defined pipe and redirection operators (view source)
Revision as of 03:33, 10 February 2013
, 11 years ago→Simplify description
(Simplify description) |
|||
Line 250:
[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 22:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
: That's not enough -- equivalence is contextual. Here, I can easily identify three different forms of equivalence, each of which allows a variety of variations even without considering optional combinations with the others.
:: Syntactic equivalence (ordering of the components)
:: Functional equivalence (results after execution)
:: Implementation equivalence (for example: similar buffer size and structure, use of fork(), ...)
One problem, here, is that the interpretation favored on this site (functional equivalence) is trivial in the context of most programming languages - most of these operators wind up being "put a result somewhere". So, to avoid the trivialness of this task we might be inclined to favor an implementation equivalence (perhaps, including: buffer sizes less than multiple gigabytes in size, which in turn means buffers are required in the implementation), but where do you draw the line? For example, is it important to implement a process scheduler as a part of this task? [probably not, but what about the many other dozens of facets of how I have used these mechanisms?]. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
| |||