Logic for conditional text

Before I talk more about WYSIWYG for conditional text, an observation:  tagging, labelling text.



For many years FrameMaker only allowed ORing of conditional text tags:  if a piece of text was tagged with both A and B, it would pint if either A or B was true.  There was no way of saying that both A or B had to be true.



Sure, FrameMaker eventually fixed that.  First ANDing. AND NOT. Then parenthesizes. I am not sure if it is arbitrarily complex yet, but it is better than it was. (I wish my company used that version of FrameMaker, or did not use FrameMaker at all.)



In theory all conditions could be expressed by sum of product minterms or product of sum maxterms, with NOT.  Hck, it could all be expressed by NAND and NOR.  But that would be a pain.



Part of the problem is that conditional text tagging is done at different times, by different people - or, worse, simultaneously by people who are not necessarily coordinating.  And that the logical expressions required are fragile - one contributor adding a tag may "EXPLODE" the logical expressions needed to handle his text, when transcluded by somebody else.  Fragile base class all over again!



Say that user1 is producing three versions of a document, tagged V1, V2, V3.  Just those tags are used- no "not-V1".  The logic to determine if text is displayed is not "V1 or V2 or V3" - it is actually "Untagged OR V1 OR V2 OR V3".  If text is tagged both V1 and V2, it displays if either V1 or V2 is being produced, but not V3.



(Much confusion occurs because people forget the implicit "Untagged".  Assuming "Untagged => "display in all versions".)



But user2 has added a different set of tags: let's say TA, TB, TC.  Same logic: "Untagged OR TA OR TB OR TC".



I am deliberately not using binary tags, X and not-X.  I have observed that often tags come in these mutual-??? sets.  Not really mutually exclusive - text may be tagged both V1 and V2.  But the V1 and V2 versions are conceptually separate.  The problem, of course, arises because I often like to create a readable mta-document, a unified version, rather than having to cope with combinatoric explosion.  But that's for later.





Now the user1 and user2 conditions may combine. Combinatoric explosion.



Emphasizing: it is NOT user1.condition OR user2.condition: NOT "Untagged OR V1 OR V2 OR V3" OR "Untagged OR TA OR TB OR TC" => "Untagged OR V1 OR V2 OR V3 OR TA OR TB OR TC".



E.g. we may be generating the combination V1.TB => "(Untagged OR V1) AND (Untagged OR TA)" 





Where people get into trouble is when they try to implement this via a UI (User Interface) which is supposedly simpl, and indicates whether tag is wanted or not via V1wanted=0 or V1wanted=1. Part of the trouble is that, at the very least, you need 3 stats for a wanted predicate: definitely wanted, definitely not wanted, and "I don't care".



As in "I want all text related to V1".



I don't want any text related to V2 (unless it happens to also be tagged related to V1".



And "I don't care if the text tagged V2 is included or not". 



In all cases the text is conceptually passed on to another layer, with the tags intact; and only at the end are all conditions stripped out.



E.g. V[123].T[ABC] => V[12].T[BC] => T[1].T[B].



Worse, the ultimate user may not know of options or tags added by a user earlier in this pipeline.  From the ultimate user's point of view, he may know that he dies not want any TC stuff, but he dos not know if user2 has added a TD alternative.  So the downstream user cannot say TA|TB|TD - he just says "Not TC".  Which is only meaningful in the context of a mutual group T[ABCD], whre "not TC" really means "Untaged OR TA OR TB OR TC" or "Untagged or Any Tag in the T* group except TB".



E.g. a microprocessor family that evolved through 8. 16, 32, and 64 bit versions, like x86 (not to mention 20 and 24 bit stags).



Let's say a user wants just the 8 and 16 bit versions.   If he says "not 32", then he gets 64.  Would that not be strange - having documentation for the 8 16 and 64 bit versions of a CPU, but not the 32?  (Although I can imagine...)



So saying "not 32" normally also implies "not 64".  Or, perhaps "not 32" really means "wordsize < 32" or "wordsize NOT >= 32".



But user1 may introduce a different tag that is not part of this evolutionary sequence - so not-32 should not imply not-virtual-machine.





The problem is that a condition that works at one time may not work going forward, as more tags are added.

Aspects, Conditional Text, and WYSIWYG

I like "aspect oriented programming".



In my undergrad, well before I had heard of AOSP, I was writing tools so that I could manage all of the aspects of an instruction definition in a single place - and then distribute them to multiple places.



E.g.



instruction name: OR

encoding: 00000.rd5.rs5.imm16

action: GPR[rd] := GPR[rs] + imm16

traps: none

latency: 1



instruction name: FADD

encoding: 00000.fd5.fsrcA5.fsrcB5.imm16

action: FPR[fd] := FPR[fsrcA] + FPR[fsrcB]

traps: FP-traps

latency: 4



I would then split up this stuff to generate many different files used in CPU toolchain: simulator decoder, execution, disassembler, compiler timing tables, etc. Combining with other specs - e.g pipeline (latency might be defined there instead), etc.



(I also used to generate the opcodes to minimize logic, but that's a different story.)



But this invoves looking at the aspects sorted according to only one criteria, in this case by instruction. Sometimes you waant to sort by other criteria: the sort key is itself an aspect



E.g. sorted by property



instruction name: OR

instruction name: FADD



traps: OR: none

traps: FADD: FP-traps



encoding: FADD: 00000.rd5.rs5.imm16

encoding: FADD: 00000.fd5.fsrcA5.fsrcB5.imm16



action: OR: GPR[rd] := GPR[rs] + imm16

action: FADD: FPR[fd] := FPR[fsrcA] + FPR[fsrcB]



latency: OR: 1

latency: OR: 4

would like to be able to edit in any rearrangement of the aspects, and still have it generate.





Database views: some editable, some read only.



Later, realized that, even though might not be able to edit and regenerate some views, often can verify consistency of non-generatable view.



---



In techwriting, conditional text is the most primitive support for AOSP - AOTW? But conditional text can be hard to deal with. I would not be surprised if there was a polemic CONDITIONAL TEXT CONSIDERED HARMFUL.  Heck, in programming, I wrote a diatribe IFDEF CONSIDERED HARMFUL, very much the same.  And a friend has said that he would like to have a simulator with no IF statements... (not exactly that).



Ah, here are some TW equivalents of Dijkstra (why is it that techwriters do not write as well as Dijkstra the computer scientist?):

• woes-conditional-text

• When Conditional Content Goes Wild: 4 Top Tips for Avoiding Pain – Part 1
• When Conditional Content Goes Wild – Part 2: Securing Support and Making Deep Changes

Similarly wrt transclusion. From woes-conditional-text:

When you have just a few conditions or transclusions with your content, there’s no problem. But when you suddenly realize that editing the topic is requiring an immense amount of concentration and careful analysis because you’ve got too many conditions or transclusions to sort out in your mind, you have to consider whether simply copying and pasting is more efficient.

This is very much like the Fragile Base Class Problem in programming - and many object oriented gurus recommend "reuse interface, not implementation".



I have made a minor step forward in this area by realizing that one of the good things from programming - writing tests that should apply to all implementations of an interface - also applies to documentation.  Many aspects (coincidence?) of documentation can be automatically tested.  Such automated tests for documentation help maintain invariants and standards both when there is lots of conditional text and transclusion, and when there has been lots of replication via cut and paste.



--



But what I want to talk about is making conditional text (and transclusion) easier to manage.

Now trying: Jawbone UP - who needs the stinking cloud anyway?

Elsewhere I have discussed how I was disappointed by the FitBit Charge as a replacement for my Basis B1 watch activity tracker.  So I returned the FitBit Charge, and am now trying the Jawbone UP.



I plan to use the Jawbone UP not as a replacement for my Basis B1 watch, possibly not even as an activity tracker at all - but as a vibrating alarm gadget on my wrist.



Why?  I think that vibrating on the wrist, rather than ringing annoying on the handset, might be the killer app for watches.



 I was reasonably happy with my Basis Watch as an activity tracker.  Certainly, it has upped my fitness level.  But I was frustrated by the following Basis shortcomings: (1) no sharing of data with other users, no friendly social scene; (2) no counting of vertical.



I bought a FitBit One to try to remedy these Basus shortcomings.  I have certainly liked the vertical distance metric: Portland ain't flat! I hoped to like the social aspects, LoseIt.com or MyFitnessPal.com - but that has not worked iout so well, yet.



I greatly disliked the FitBit One reporting only total steps, not tracking time of day. I disliked the FitBit One's wristband.



But mainly, I found that I *LIKED* the FitBit One's vibrating alarms: both wakeup, and occasionally during the day (time to head out, midmorning, lunch, midafternoon, time to head home, time for bed).  Should I admit that I often get so swallowed up by work that I don't notice what time it is?





I had hoped that the FitBit c=Charge would fill the bill.  Unfortunately, my Charge did not charge its batteries, or else discharged them far too quickly: it only worked for 15 minutes after charging for 24 hours.  Normally I would do an exchange - but the Charge felt like such a piece of shit - its interface being a single button that I could not tell if it had been pressed or not (as opposed to the nice tactile feedback of the button on the FitBit One or Garmin Vivofit) - that I did not feel like bothering.





So instead, I am trying a Jawbone.  Not the more expensive Jawbone UP3 or UP24, but the origional Jawbone, not wireless, which can be found fairly cheaply (especially if you are wiling to take an unpopular color).





MY plan, my theory:  I can use the Jawbone just for the "cvirbatuon" features:



(1) vibrating wake from sleep (aka a smart alarm)



(2) vibrating idle alert



(3) vibrating reminders.



Unfortunately, as usual there are annoying limits:



-- only 4 each of alarms and reminders



   ++ Stupid short sightedness.  HOw about a vibe alarm every hour of two?



-- the reminders seem to always generate a notification on my phone. Damn phone centric mindset: I do not want to have reminders on both phone and watch. I want to avoid the slowness of my phone as much as possible.





I may not want to use the tracking features of the Jawbone at all, except implicitly for the idle









After fitness, I think that notifications may be the killer app. But not a wrist notification for every email - selectivity!!!

10 things I hate about Git | Steve Bennett blogs

10 things I hate about Git | Steve Bennett blogs:



'via Blog this'



Sounds like the old "Bazaar:

Version control that doesn’t make your eyes bleed

http://blogs.operationaldynamics.com/andrew/software/version-control/git-is-like-cvs

The Perfected Self - David H. Freedman - The Atlantic

The Perfected Self - David H. Freedman - The Atlantic:



I read Walden Two in high school, and could never understand how Skinner's work could be perceived so badly.



Chomsky has a lot to answer for.

Activity Details | Basis

I like my Basis watch.



I give credit to my Basis watch for giving me continued motivation for increasing exercise.



But...



---



I choose the Basis watch when I originally went shopping, a year or so ago, for a QS device.



There were reasons that I choose the Basis watch over other devices:



I particularly like that the Basis watch is a WATCH, not just a wristband or a clip-on pedometer.  It is actually useful for telling time - and I think that, since I started wearing it, not only do I exercise more, but I am probably more punctual, and better at time management overall because I am more easily aware of the time.



At the time I was looking, the Basis watch was the only well-known device that reported heart-rate. (Although I have since become familiar with how often the Basis has aliasing probems: e.g. I will be working out on the treadmill, my pulse will be rising - 100 bpm, 120, but then it will drop down to 70 all of a sudden, when it should probably be reading 140 bpm.  (Hmm, I just realized that this "aliasing" may be happening when my steps per minute and my beats per minute are almost the same.  I wonder if that is related.)



Also, the Basis watch, at that time, was unusual in that it measured skin temperature and Galvanic skin response.  I have a long interest in trying to measure mood or mental state... but so far have not seen a useful correlation.



---



But...



While the Basis device, the watch itself, is great,

the Basis website and software sucks.



Basis has limited graphs and analytics on their website.



Basis does not make it easy to get your own data
(but see http://www.quantifiedbob.com/2013/04/liberating-your-data-from-the-basis-b1-band/)



It seems to be well known that one of the most important features of fitness or activity monitors is sharing information with a support network - family, friends, people with similar health and fitness goals.

But as far as I know, there is absolutely no "official" Basis ability to do this.

Not only not on the Basis website,

but neither does Basis interface to any of the many apps and websites such as Lose It

that aggregate data from multiple devices.



I know that Basis is owned by Intel,

and that Intel has ambitions in eHealth.

Perhaps Intel doesn't want to allow you to share your own Basis data,

and would prefer to hold it hostage until

they provide their own Intel Health solution?



---



Anyway, I am just writing this as I nerve myself up to get a non-Basis device

that talks better to the world.



I may keep my Basis watch - after all, it is a good watch and a good pedometer.



But it falls short on the social aspects of fitness and activity tracking.



Basis:



Good device.

Probably good software inside the device, as evidenced  by upgrades to distinguish running and walking.



Bad software outside the device,

in the Android app

and in the webpage.

IntelMemoryProtectionExtensions - address-sanitizer - Discussion of Intel Memory Protection Extensions (MPX) and comparison with AddressSanitizer - AddressSanitizer: a fast memory error detector - Google Project Hosting

IntelMemoryProtectionExtensions - address-sanitizer - Discussion of Intel Memory Protection Extensions (MPX) and comparison with AddressSanitizer - AddressSanitizer: a fast memory error detector - Google Project Hosting:



'via Blog this'



Intel MPX (Memnory Protection eXtensions) has false positives with atomic pointers.



Sigh: this is the big part that Intel gave up wrt my work:  I had carefully figured out how to manipulate the bounds metadata atomically.



It should only be in hardware if atomicity is properly handled.