On 13.03.2010 23:30, Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 13.03.2010 14:22, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
[snip]
>> Think of the following hypothetical game: assume there are 5 kids but
>> only 3 pieces of cake. Two of the kids are brothers and brother A
>> happens to get a piece, due to a unknown process that enumerates the
>> kids in random order. Now A decides to give up his piece of cake in
>> favor of his brother B, which didn't get a piece yet. But A is not
>> allowed to give his piece to B directly. All he can do is accept the
>> piece or give it back, so it will be reassigned to some other (unknown
>> which exactly!) kid in the next enumeration step. Isn't A's decision a
>> bit stupid? There is no guarantee that B will get any cake at all.
>>
>> But here, it is even worse: the unversioned handler is the last brother
>> of our family getting a piece of cake! All other brothers already got
>> their piece of cake! Why should that unversioned handler brother give
>> away his cake, in favor of another kid from another family?
>>
>> Where is the bug in my thinking?
>
> you forgot to take into account that 'baby brother' *must* have his cake
> or he will refuse to go to sleep.
> Now if none of the bothers know which one will get a cake, some of them
> have to decline their cake to make sure that 'baby brother' will get one.
You still didn't say anything about the case where all brothers got a cake.
There's truly not much point in refusing the last one.
> Or do you really want to risk that the 'modified' overlay won't get
> shown? I'd rather have the 'unversioned' overlay not showing up.
The current code doesn't guarantee that either.
But I guess I rest my case now.
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=757&dsMessageId=2459305
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-03-14 08:21:28 CET