> One point to make is that we aren't planning to actually break some
> of these idioms outside the box (e.g., the single check idiom). I am
> just suggesting that we say they are outside the box, no guarantees
> will be made, and encourage people to get inside the box.
I'm a little confused here. Which of the following do you mean:
1. You believe that the LC approach needs to be somehow patched to avoid the
unexpected single-check getValue behavior?
2. You believe that it is good enough for now that no one has yet
built a machine that actually exploits the model agressively
enough to produce this behavior?
(Or something else?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:22 EDT