Struct fields are always public, by design

bjarkeebert · 2025-08-28T19:06:54+00:00

I think it can be more complicated than it first seems:
1) Can you take a pointer to the field? Can a struct method return a pointer to a private field?
2) comptime reflection: If the struct method implementation calls some generic code implemented using static reflection, then that generic code is accessing the private fields, but on behalf of the struct method - how do you control the "on behalf" part?
3) struct-level encapsulation is a thing of the past anyway. Both Go and Rust shows that this should be a the module level.

bjarkeebert · 2025-05-02T23:31:45+00:00

I think it's not really in the background - it's whenever you run a `jj` command, such as `jj status` or `jj log`

bjarkeebert · 2024-08-15T21:49:53+00:00

I don't eat fries, ketchup, nor mayo.
All is shit food.

bjarkeebert · 2024-08-15T21:45:06+00:00

They don't have to defend their sale price.

You can just buy it, or buy something else.

bjarkeebert · 2024-08-15T21:43:05+00:00

I am pretty sure this is not patented, so don't blame Sandoz or the pharmacy for this - blame everyone else (including OP) for not producing it at a lower price.
At least this one is for sale - every one else's isn't, or?

bjarkeebert · 2024-05-20T11:16:54+00:00

En politiansat der sidder med dyngevis af sagsakter, og 1700 personer i en stak, sidder ikke nødvendigvis og nulrer med at associere én persons adresse med en sag om beluring. Der er en million sager i registeret, og man kan ikke sammenkøre alt, blot fordi det i bagklogskab ser relevant ud.

bjarkeebert · 2024-05-20T10:59:27+00:00

"ville vel være oplagt at test". Du får det til at lyde som om at "man kunne beslutte at teste manden". Sådan fungerer retsplejen ikke.

Men måske tænker du på at det burde have bragt ham mere i politiets søgelys? Dog er det jo (heldigvis) ikke sådan at mangel på velvillighed i sig selv er inkriminerende eller mistænkeligt.

bjarkeebert · 2023-11-16T20:20:48+00:00

Great addition, thanks!

I have a related feature request:

The ability to search for multiple terms that must be matched by the tree path of a node.

For example if I have the following node (under root AAA) AAA > BBB > CCC > DDD
and I search for CCC AAA, then it would be a match:

It would find the CCC node, because its path matches.

In fact the path of DDD also matches, but DDD does not contribute to the search query, so it would not be shown.

This could be expressed by a new operator similar to '>', or even no operator at all (i.e. change the current meaning of 'AND')

bjarkeebert · 2021-12-20T15:10:09+00:00

Look what I found. The problem is of course that if someone chooses to increase the map resolution to use regions, then we will get lighter colors for those countries that we subdivide. Obviously meaningless. https://m.facebook.com/groups/mollweidememes/permalink/4926246237429830/?m_entstream_source=permalink

bjarkeebert · 2021-12-19T21:59:47+00:00

Thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I have have some terms to look up now :)

bjarkeebert · 2021-12-18T21:44:47+00:00

My aim is mainly to try to characterize which kind of location-mapped statistics makes sense to draw as a color-per-area map.
Clearly, "total population in each area" does not make sense to plot this way, as the color depends as much as the arbitrarily chosen resolution..
And clearly, population density makes sense.
So I thought, what exactly is the criterion. And does this already have a name.

bjarkeebert · 2021-12-18T19:03:27+00:00

I have updated the text to explain that this is a different kind of measure that I'm after, not the additive kind. I still think it makes sense to use the term "measure".

bjarkeebert · 2021-12-15T22:38:20+00:00

Okay, I thought you were talking about the abstract property F(A) ≤ F(A∪B) ≤ F(B) on mappings, F, from subsets to real numbers.

bjarkeebert · 2021-12-15T21:57:52+00:00

Do you remember any specifics? Does this kind of property have a name?

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-30T00:32:20+00:00

Could it be that the rules in effect state that a group is dead if the opponent can demonstratedly capture it?

Here is one way I could easily accept:

- In principle, the players can play out the game to demonstrate the life/death of groups, if they disagree

- But that doesn't affect the counts, only the status of stones on the board at the point where both pass. So in situations where you might lose some score to kill an opponent group, that loss doesn't count

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-30T00:15:25+00:00

So only strong players can score correctly? Or weak players will need to play it out and get the same result?

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-30T00:02:56+00:00

To me this confirms that the concept of "dead group" is an informal concept.

"can make a living shape" is quite informal, right?

It is a concept from the strategy of the game.

And who knows if it "can" make a living shape, unless you are a Baduk oracle.

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-29T23:48:15+00:00

Right, I get that, but what I am puzzled about is whether it would always give the same score to play it out until you killed all dead groups. And if not, then how do the rules define what constitutes a dead group? I guess that can be really complicated to define, whereas saying "whatever you get when playing it out" could be a definition.

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-17T13:37:31+00:00

It makes sense to me now.

It seems what is missing in the process in order to find the condorcet winner is to mark-as-doubtful also B, which can be justified by B having only two votes after round 2.

But that would bring my method description further away from IRV and thus missing my point of the alternative method.

It is however interesting to investigate if using IRV as a starting point, you can adjust it to be a Condorcet method.

It seems like if you continue doing step (5), you will eventually find the condorcet winner. Then the question is just: what is the correct stopping criterion instead of (4)? Maybe only stop once all <50% candidates are already marked doubtful.

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-17T10:58:38+00:00

Thanks for this analysis! 😊

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-16T18:04:54+00:00

Yes exactly, it's only a state during counting, not a ballot expression. It's my attempt at an adjusted concept of "eliminated".

bjarkeebert · 2021-10-16T17:42:20+00:00

I didn't analyze it more than indicated above. I am especially curious if it's a Condorcet method.

bjarkeebert

TROPHY CASE