[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Facade discussion
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Facade discussion
- From: WFreitag@aol.com
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:24:29 EDT
- Sender: email@example.com
>I'll work on a response to your latest posting over the next week or so.
Looking forward to it!
I just noticed that the posting I sent was not the final version I intended
to send. Most of the differences are minor. I'm not going to send it over
again, nor worry about the many spelling errors and wording glitches where
it's clear what I meant, but let me briefly mention a few points that should
have been corrected...
- I garbled the clear distinction you made between recoveries and
transitions. Everyplace I mentioned recoveries, I actually meant transitions.
- I wrote, "Even in the middle ground, you need supply lines back to one or
the other [attractor], or both." This is actually a highly debatable point. I
won't withdraw it, because it might be defensible, but I'm not certain of
- In my closing list of questions, question 2 is superfluous as worded. You
made it clear that you do intend behaviors to have reactive variablilty of so
me sort. The question should instead focus on what sort. (And I still think
it's interesting to speculate that your overall approach might not actually
require such variability.)