On Monday 17 October 2016 at 22:49, Ashish Agarwal wrote:

> That's an interesting proposal. So you throw away the precision at some 
> point. It seems a shame, but maybe that's good enough to get most of the 
> value. 

I think you should transform your errors according to your level of abstraction 
as much as you do with your values. Also using inclusion (by tagging an error 
subset) rather than union for errors reported by subsystems allows you to work 
with a constant set of variants at a given abstraction level which lessens the 


MirageOS-devel mailing list

Reply via email to