rhkramer writes:
> Some examples from (simple) math include adding zero or multiplying by
> 1.
Those are respectively the additive and multiplicative identities. They
are, of course, idempotent but not good examples because they never
change the operand even on first application.
A better examp
debian-user wrote:
>> In programming the focus is perhaps better, for something
>> idempotent, something like: Do it the first time.
>> Don't screw it up the second time? And don't do the
>> computing if it doesn't need to be done?
>
> Sorry, but idempotence says nothing at all about
> computation
> In programming the focus is perhaps better, for something
> idempotent, something like: Do it the first time. Don't screw
> it up the second time? And don't do the computing if it
> doesn't need to be done?
Sorry, but idempotence says nothing at all about computational
efficiency or cost.
And
Curt wrote:
> One "programming" example given on that same Wikipedia page
> was that if you applied an update operation to Lutz
> Mueller's email address in a database (*ich habe
> Kopfschmerzen*!) that same update applied a second or third
> time (ad infinitum) would produce identical results.
Y
On Sunday, September 25, 2022 08:42:57 AM The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Oops, ignore that previous response ...
> >
> > On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a
> > way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morni
On 2022-09-25, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> If the nature of operation O is such that objects B and
>> C are guaranteed to always be identical, no matter what
>> object A was, then operation O is categorized as
>> being idempotent.
>
> It has to do with the number of times it is
> rhkramer wrote:
>
> > An operation that produces the same results no matter how
> > many times it is performed.
>
> Yeah, obviously it is a term from math and in practical and
> applied engineering as is programming I thought of
> a definition (not really) like this
>
> - apply once, you get
The Wanderer wrote:
> If the nature of operation O is such that objects B and
> C are guaranteed to always be identical, no matter what
> object A was, then operation O is categorized as
> being idempotent.
It has to do with the number of times it is applied,
abs(x) = abs(abs(x)) = abs..(abs(abs
rhkramer wrote:
> An operation that produces the same results no matter how
> many times it is performed.
Yeah, obviously it is a term from math and in practical and
applied engineering as is programming I thought of
a definition (not really) like this
- apply once, you get the change
- apply t
Am 25.09.2022 14:42, schrieb The Wanderer:
On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a
way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morning coffee
yet)
Are you sure?
Meanwhile, I do think my description was
On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oops, ignore that previous response ...
>
> On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a
> way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morning coffee
> yet)
Are you sure?
Because it doesn't seem to match my un
Oops, ignore that previous response ...
On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a way that
I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morning coffee yet)
Sorry for the noise!
On Sunday, September 25, 2022 07:56:08 AM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, Septemb
On Saturday, September 24, 2022 09:17:31 AM hede wrote:
> "Idempotent" means, that a task with the same input data and the same
> config (for example to remove a tag via exif-tool) results in the same
> output data. Is this the case here?
That is not my understanding of itempotent (nor of Wikipedi
13 matches
Mail list logo
