Hi Mathieu,
yes, of course I meant a non-repeating number. I was concentrating on the end-results rather then the details of the process, but it's a useful distinction when trying to document it. Thanks.
d.
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Derek Holzer wrote:
Dear Libero, [...] where $0 will be replaced by a new random number which is unique to each abstraction).
Dear Derek, please see http://web.archive.org/web/20011027002011/http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/...
$0 numbers are just as predictable as the random numbers in that cartoon. they form the sequence: 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, ...
In pd, it's not really important how those numbers are picked as long as there are no duplicates. In practice, it's easiest to count up and not bother reusing numbers when abstractions are destroyed. This is what pd does. This strategy is not without shortcomings, but few people ever noticed it.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - t�l:+1.514.383.3801, Montr�al QC Canada