[m-rev.] for review: allow search mode to be changed in DD

[Julien Fischer]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Ian MacLarty wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Julien Fischer wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Ian MacLarty wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Julien Fischer wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Ian MacLarty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For review by anyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Estimated hours taken: 12
> > > > > Branches: main
> > > > >
> > > > > Allow the search mode to be changed from within the declarative debugger.
> > > > >
> > > > >  @sp 1
> > > > >  @item undo
> > > > > -Reset the state of the declarative debugger to what it was before the most
> > > > > -recent `yes', `no', `inadmissible', `trust', `skip' or `mark' answer that has
> > > > > -not already been undone.
> > > > > +Reset the state of the declarative debugger to the state it was in when
> > > > > +the question that came before the current question, and that hasn't already
> > > > > +been undone, was asked.
> > > >
> > > > That's not an improvement.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please suggest something better then.  Otherwise I will just put "Try it and
> > > find out" ;-).
> > >
> > IMO, what was there was better, although this section has always seemed a
> > little awkward.
> >
> > Here's a suggestion:
> >
> > 	Return the declarative debugger to the state it was in
> > 	before the most recent answer or mode change was given.
> >
>
> I think "Undo the most recent answer or mode change" would be better.
>
> There are basically two ways to go about this description:
>
> 1) Get it completely accurate, which requires a complicated description like the
> original one above (your description is not entirely accurate because it implies that
> undo is idempotent and also the state is not set to what it was before the most recent
> answer, but to the state it was in when the question the most recent answer relates
> to was first asked.)
>
> 2) Give an intentionally vauge, but easy to parse description.
>
> I think the second option is better *in this case*, because most users understand
> intuitively what the behaviour of undo is and offering them a complicated description
> will only make them think it does something non-standard that needs to be explained.
>
> I think it will just be frustrating for the user to have to parse and
> understand a complicated description only to realise it does what he/she
> intuitively would have expected it to do.
>
I agree, go with the shorter version.

Julien.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------