Re: [spoon-discuss] Nearest location

[bd <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 18 June 2002 6:56 pm, Dan Waldron wrote:
> > The 'nearest location' is not explicitly defined anywhere. Do we want
> > another near-crisis like the DimShips again?
>
> But we have a means for calculating distance.  "Nearest" is commonly used
> to mean "least distance".  Since our usage of "nearest location" exactly
> coincides with the standard English usage, and that standard English usage
> is pretty clear, we don't need to seperately define it.
>
> "Nearest location" is in the same category as "automated script", "dice
> roll", "transfer", "email address", "integer", or any number of other
> things understood without an explicit definition.
>
> There are a few words that we should define because they are used in ways
> different from the standard English usage.  Try any of these: "object",
> "entity", "ballot", "document", or "attribute".

What's out definition of nearest object where there's more than one with the 
same distance? Anyway, it closes one *possible* loophole. You never know, 
someone might try to exploit it. Remember, the Grid != the real world, and 
our common usage says nothing about the Grid.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss