|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2018-03-18 06:10 PDT|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0001156||Core Inform||Assertions and creations||public||2013-12-12 11:52||2014-05-07 07:33|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version||6L02|
|Summary||0001156: Declaring a kind "always improper-named" can cause errors|
|Description||The code below produces this error:|
Problem. You wrote 'Matching key of locker is red key' , but in another sentence 'A key is always improper-named' : red key therefore has to have two contradictory states of the same property at once, which is impossible. When a kind's definition says that something is 'always' true, there is no way to override that for particular things of the kind.
The "Matching key..." declaration is the first mention of the red key, and it's named without "the". Therefore, the compiler thinks that the red key must be proper-named. That's not unreasonable. But then the "always" declaration for keys blows it up.
(A more specific declaration, "The red key is improper-named," works correctly. In fact it allows the "always" declaration to go through without error, which I guess is not surprising.)
This is a somewhat contrived example, but I don't think it's *too* contrived.
|Minimal Source Text To Reproduce|
The Kitchen is a room. A key is a kind of thing. A key is always improper-named. The locker is a locked container in the Kitchen. Matching key of locker is red key. The red key is a key in the Kitchen.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Effect||(serious) Compiler rejects valid code|
More generally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the very first mention of an object is privileged in this way (creating an implicit proper-named declaration).
I know that "X is a key" and "The foo of Y is X" are both relation-declarations about X, but can there be more nuance about which one to take as *the* declaration of X's existence? I realize this is a fuzzy area, and maybe adding complexity will only degrade things, but I feel the need to ask.
|Fixed; the result is an improper-named red key. Inform only infers proper-named from a lack of article at the level of "likely", whereas "A key is always improper-named" results in an inference considered "certain", so there's a clear winner. This was just a bug in the code reconciling that.|
|2013-12-12 11:52||zarf||New Issue|
|2013-12-12 11:59||zarf||Note Added: 0002176|
|2013-12-14 11:56||EmacsUser||Status||new => confirmed|
|2014-05-04 02:50||graham||Note Added: 0002651|
|2014-05-04 02:50||graham||Status||confirmed => resolved|
|2014-05-04 02:50||graham||Resolution||open => fixed|
|2014-05-04 02:50||graham||Assigned To||=> graham|
|2014-05-07 07:32||jmcgrew||Fixed in Version||=> 6L02|
|2014-05-07 07:33||jmcgrew||Status||resolved => closed|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2010 MantisBT Group|