> > > The trick in the case of when you do not want to guess, or the choices > > > grow too much, is to ask the user to tell you in what format they want > > > it and format according to their wishes. > > > > Neatly avoids too much guessing and isn't much extra to add. > > > The plot is about understanding input, not formatting output. > > And what he meant is simply to make an agreement with the user on how > he/she would format his/her input and to disallow input from formats > that haven't been agreed to avoid guessing. That is the cleanest and > most polite solution, although I'd suspect it would be considered less > user friendly by regular user although power user would be most happy > with that.
This one comes from signal theory, actually. With no information about the signal's transmitter, there's no way to guess what language/ customs/manners/convention/protocol he's using. That is, for every protocol, there exists a second protocol which mimics it for the first n bits with a different meaning. There's the Gettysburg Compression Method which transmits a '1' to send the Gettysburg Address, and prepends a 0 to every other message. Of course, there is already an agreed convention. You can tell if you speak a stranger's language once you start interacting-- that is, enter a verbal context with him. There aren't any two -existing- languages which overlap for long at all. 'Can you buy me beer?' does not mean anything in anything but English-- it's gibberish in every other. When it comes to computers, the bandwidth and context mass might be so tiny so far that there's much ambiguity. "Is 11/30 a fraction, a month, or a date?" -"Fraction." "Please proceed." Outside of those two factors, there is not much difference between "natural" and formal systems. Bandwidth is easy enough to increase-- just add a camera, a mic, chemovoltaic, tactilevoltaic, or some specialization of one. Context is the hard thing to grow. "Or, is there another protocol I can look up?" -"Yeah, I know the bartender." "Your statement changed context-determined probabilities. Your own context has been forked." "Your statements have suggested that you have adopted a new convention which I recognize. Is APR 03 a month or a finance model? (You nor the convention neither use statements with the form Apr 03 to mean days.)" -"*plonk*" "You seem to maintain that there are no other users and/or that you have unlimited property right." -"*crowbar*" "This action will void the warranty. Continue?" -"*incendiaries*" "We're just glad you're not organize enough to boycott." -"*boycotts*" "Your usage of that term is inconsistent. Please purchase higher bandwidth." -"*speechless*" "What are you doing, Dave?" -"I won't stand for this." "What are you saying?" -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
