zz: Awful Hackery? (was: Re: Clarif. re inside/contents

[Ted Nelson <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Dominus:

>When I first understood how inside-contents worked, I said, ``Oh, what
>an awful hack.''  If this one hack is the only one, that is not too
>bad.  But sometimes when you have a hack it bespeaks a very deep flaw
>that will have to be patched over and over again with hack after hack.
>That's my biggest worry about ZigZag.
>
>Of course, I'm not suggestion that you change it; the property is
>fundamental to ZigZag and I think it's important to find out whether
>it works or not.

Perhaps you've put your finger on it:
 ZigZag is a DISTRIBUTED AWFUL HACK.
 There's always a little suffering to make something fit,
 but you're always getting the main payback:
GUARANTEED ROW-AND-COLUMN EXPLORATION
 OF EVERYTHING, WITH ALL EXCURSIONS REVERSIBLE.

As with many general conditions of life (what country you
 live in, living under capitalism, relationships, etc.), there are
 daily inconveniences but there's a lot to be said for the
 overall commitment.

Best, T


At 12:39 AM 10/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> "Inside" is transitive-- (could it be otherwise?)--
>
>I'm not sure, but I agree that it would have to be a rather bizarre
>counterexample. 
>
>> Now, the problem with only having that one dimension
>>  to represent containment is that in this model,
>>  each thing can only contain *one other* thing,
>>  like nesting Russian dolls.
>
>That is a persistent problem with the ZigZag model.
>
>I am compiling a list of examples where that property is inconvenient
>or clumsy; this was one of them; the male-female example I mailed
>earlier is another.  
>
>When I first understood how inside-contents worked, I said, ``Oh, what
>an awful hack.''  If this one hack is the only one, that is not too
>bad.  But sometimes when you have a hack it bespeaks a very deep flaw
>that will have to be patched over and over again with hack after hack.
>That's my biggest worry about ZigZag.
>
>Of course, I'm not suggestion that you change it; the property is
>fundamental to ZigZag and I think it's important to find out whether
>it works or not.
>
>>   A design choice is whether to have some title, or just the first item,
>>  at the top of the list;
>
>Yes.  That's precisely why I was asking about B in this picture:
>> >> >        A - B - C      +--> +d.inside
>> >> >        |   |   |      |
>> >> >        X   B1  C1     v +d.contents
>
>
>> The expected structures is: 
>> d.contents \/   d.inside =>  ("|" here means "no connection)
>> A a
>>    b
>>    c
>>  B d
>>    e
>>    f
>> 
>> where for some reason (probably visual convenience in
>>  some context), A *might* be connected to B, abd c to d,
>>  but those connections have no system-supported connection.
>
>Maybe I misunderstand your illustration, but if c and d are connected,
>won't the system interpret d, e, and f as part of the contents of A?
>
>(I usually write `c-d' as an abbreviation for `c and d are connected'.)
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Theodor Holm Nelson, Visiting Professor of Environmental Information
 Keio University, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Fujisawa, Japan
 Home Fax from USA: 011-81-466-46-7368  (If in Japan, 0466-46-7368)
Professorial home page http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/ 
_____________________________________________________
Permanent: Project Xanadu, 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965
 Tel. 415/ 331-4422, fax 415/332-0136  
http://www.xanadu.net
PERMANENT E-MAIL: ted@xxxxxxxxxx
_____________________________________________________
Quotation of the day, 98.10.28:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible."  Albert Einstein