On 11/21/2017 04:06 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I ask because your example highlighted two types of problems. That
> they could be aggregated doesn't seem an necessary or innate property.
>
> The difficulty with the sort of aggregation design you propose is that
> you need to aggregate and I
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> On 11/20/2017 08:24 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> Is this better cast as "sub" problems, or just "additional" problems?
>
> I think "additional" is the wrong semantic, because it implies that the
> first error is hoisted
On 11/21/2017 11:48 AM, Niklas Keller wrote:
> How about "causes"?
I think this also implies more meaning than there really is. It also has
the unfortunate property of being both a plural noun and a transitive
verb, which could be confusing.
Is there a problem with sub-problems?
2017-11-21 19:55 GMT+01:00 Jacob Hoffman-Andrews :
> On 11/20/2017 08:24 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > Is this better cast as "sub" problems, or just "additional" problems?
>
> I think "additional" is the wrong semantic, because it implies that the
> first error is hoisted to the
On 11/20/2017 08:24 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Is this better cast as "sub" problems, or just "additional" problems?
I think "additional" is the wrong semantic, because it implies that the
first error is hoisted to the top position, so a naive client would only
show the first error. Instead,