This position has been adopted by Karl R. Popper, Rudolf Carnap and other leading figures in (broadly) empiricist philosophy of science. Many philosophers have argued that the relation between observation and theory is way more complex and that influences can actually run both ways (e.g., Duhem 1906 [1954]; Wittgenstein 1953 [2001]). The most lasting criticism, however, was delivered by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962 [1970]) in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

357 It is this great difficulty involved in consistency which is responsiblefor the fact that however much we may try or desire to do otherwise,the best man to run a system effectively is he who has devised it,''^for however careful and painstaking we may be in trying to repro-duce his system accurately on paper, these reproductions are merelyabstracts of the original ; reproduction can never be absolutelycomplete. We may reproduce a system on paper in clearly markedoutlines, we may add within the general configuration all the inter-woven details, all of which may be concise and manageable, butbeyond the confines of the system there are blank margins in alldirections, which cannot be filled in until such cases arise as willcompel us to extend the ramifications of our system into thesemargins. It is not possible to express these ramifications before-hand on paper, but they no doubt have been allowed for in themind of the originator of the system, even supposing that he is notalways conscious of it. It is precisely these undefined marginswhich in most cases put consistency on its trial ; hence consistency,already a difficult factor in cases where the deviser deals with hisown system, is doubly so in other cases, for the unexpressed rami-fications which remain in suspense until called into being by unfore-seen circumstances can only be depicted consistently with therest of the system in the mind of the originator, who will have tobe consulted in each case for the purpose.

System without consistency is an impossibility. 356But let us realise what a difficult matter it is tobe consistent. We are surrounded by changes and inconsistencieseverywhere. Language above all, which we must needs constantlyuse, is not a perfect instrument for giving expression to consistency.We may have our rules all nicely worded and filed in the key cabinet,but if we have not taken the greatest pains in constructing them,if we have not subjected each one to the most searching criticismbefore they are applied, v/e shall find sooner or later that in one

A reviewer wants to view all comments on an MR in a condensed list, and - for each one - see the context of that comment. Problem: Notes (on the MR) and Discussions (on the Diff) are treated differently, and Discussions necessarily come with Diff context. Diff context with Discussions is difficult to match with actual diffs because rendering diffs isn't designed for non-Changes-tab contexts

I feel that the current design area should be a key part of the workflow on any work item, not just type of designs. As a PM I don't schedule designs independently. It's odd to open and close a design issue when it doesn't deliver value to the customer.

Discussions tied to the design itself is solved today with design manager, which allows those design discussions to occur within the context of a bigger issue. Bringing design manager into other work item types, like epics, would help, as would surfacing discussions from designs into the main discussion space. That behavior should be consistent for any work item type with design management enabled, rather than just for a design type.

Hidden Kosmos-Projekt

Rose therefore recommended "explicit consistency checks in a protocol ... even if they impose implementation overhead".

ISO 8601 specifies the use of uppercase letter T to separate the date and time. PostgreSQL accepts that format on input, but on output it uses a space rather than T, as shown above. This is for readability and for consistency with RFC 3339 as well as some other database systems.

What type of note did Niklas Luhmann average 6 times a day? .t3_11z08fq._2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { --postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postBodyLink-VisitedLinkColor: #989898; }

How do you store and classify index cards? I usually have boxes that fit my index cards, and add a plastic tab with the reference in Author (Date) format. Other people use different classification systems (by keyword, by topic, by author). I just recommend that the process be consistent across.

These words are redundant and inconsistent with the style of boolean methods in the Ruby core library, such as empty? and include?.

We will also run into some issues when we consider adding new channels to Service Desk like an API. We should have a streamlined process of rendering notes (messages) etc. Having a base64 image (or even attachment) in mail but not in the API might be inconsistent and also adds a lot of code that needs to be maintained.

I'm afraid you missed the joke ;-) While you believe spaces are required on both sides of an em dash, there is no consensus on this point. For example, most (but not all) American authorities say /no/ spaces should be used. That's the joke. In writing a line about "only one way to do it", I used a device (em dash) for which at least two ways to do it (with spaces, without spaces) are commonly used, neither of which is obvious -- and deliberately picked a third way just to rub it in. This will never change ;-)

The language was designed with this idea in mind, in that it “doesn't try to tell the programmer how to program.”

This motto has been very much discussed in the Perl community, and eventually extended to There’s more than one way to do it, but sometimes consistency is not a bad thing either (TIMTOWTDIBSCINABTE, pronounced Tim Toady Bicarbonate).[1] In contrast, part of the Zen of Python is, "There should be one— and preferably only one —obvious way to do it."

in my personal opinion, there shouldn't be a special treatment of do-end blocks in general. I believe that anything that starts a "block", i.e. something that is terminated by and end, should have the same indentation logic

for example, having occasion to make thousandsof brief records of such small matters as the spelling or pronunciation of a word, might well prefera slip no larger than 2x4. On the other hand, anyperson writing a coarse or heavy hand wouldprobably not care for a very small slip, whateverhis interests.

oh I'm fine with defective verbs. I'm not fine with inconsistency, though. Make it "Signup and login", and make it that on every SE page everywhere ever, and you can countin me.

I'm partial to the solution originally proposed. It follows a pattern already established in Rails. For example, using an application-specific ApplicationStorageController which inherits from ActiveStorage::BaseController is very similar to the ApplicationRecord which inherits from ActiveRecord::Base or ApplicationJob which inherits from ActiveJob::Base.

I guess my hesitation in answering your question is that I hate essentialism. It’s the same way that I hate it when people say women are better leaders because we are more empathetic. The problem with essentialism is, the moment you pay yourself a compliment based on gender, caste, religion, color of your skin — whatever — country of your origin — if you’re going to accept one generalization is true, then you’re going to have to suck up the generalizations and the caricatures that aren’t so flattering.

I think RSpec should provide around(:context)/around(:all). Not because of any particular use case, but simply for API consistency. It's much simpler to tell users "there are 3 kinds of hooks (before, after and around) and each can be used with any of 3 scopes (example, context and suite)". Having some kinds of hooks work with only some kinds of scopes makes the API inconsistent and forces us to add special case code to emit warnings and also write extra documentation for this fact.

I've been thinking of looking into implementing this in rspec-core, primarily to make the API more consistent (e.g. so that you can combine any scope -- example/context/suite -- with any hook type before/after/around).

There is something nice about aligning with the platform. But it risks being a straitjacket, and I think we can provide better ergonomics when it comes to streaming.

I'm concerned that supporting certain parts of the svelte javascript semantics in module scripts—that have so far been restricted to the instance script—could lead users to believe that everything is supported. Supporting store shorthand syntax but not reactive assignments and declarations could be confusing.

In 13.10, Shift+Insert pastes from the selection buffer (the thing that selecting text writes to). In Libre Office, Chrome, and Firefox, Shift+Insert pastes from the clipboard. I would thus like to configure gnome-terminal to do the same.

What happens when a regular error occurs and is not caught by try..catch? The script dies with a message in the console. A similar thing happens with unhandled promise rejections.

I think, if <svelte:body> is for adding events, it should apply actions too.

You can help make Node.js and browsers more unified. For example, Node.js has util.promisify, which is commonly used. I don’t understand why such an essential method is not also available in browsers. In turn, browsers have APIs that Node.js should have. For example, fetch, Web Streams (The Node.js stream module is awful), Web Crypto (I’ve heard rumors this one is coming), Websockets, etc.

Luhmann also described his system as his secondary memory (Zweitgedächtnis), alter ego, or his reading memory or (Lesegedächtnis).

Adding Object Oriented Principles (OOP) to a functional codebase adds yet another way of writing code, reducing consistency and clarity.

Prettier intentionally doesn’t support any kind of global configuration. This is to make sure that when a project is copied to another computer, Prettier’s behavior stays the same. Otherwise, Prettier wouldn’t be able to guarantee that everybody in a team gets the same consistent results.

If this is okay, then it might even be nice if #dig took a block as well as a fallback value: [].dig(1) { 'default' } #=> "default"

It would be very nice if that was consistent across every application.

Knowing what your elements are lets browsers use sensible defaults for how they should look and behave. This means you have less customization work to do and are more likely to get consistent results in different browsers.

If set to true the UI of all input widgets (number, time, month, date, range) are replaced in all browsers (also in browser, which have implemented these types). This is useful, if you want to style the UI in all browsers.

When writing copy for buttons, make sure that you keep consistency.

I vote for calling it let Could be used like this {#let foo = initialValue}. It's closer to javascript

my second preference would be for let, probably #let expr as name for consistency with #each.

A style guide is about consistency. Consistency with this style guide is important. Consistency within a project is more important. Consistency within one module or function is the most important.

To be consistent with surrounding code that also breaks it (maybe for historic reasons)

About the argument against it, "{@const will make code less consistent ": I think the same is true now, since people can come up with very different ways of dealing with the "computed value inside each loop/if function" problem. Some extract components, some use functions, some will prepare the array differently beforehand.

it also allows for more divergence in how people write there code and where they put their logic, making different svelte codebases potentially even more different due to fewer constraints. This last point is actually something I really value, I read a lot of Svelte code by a lot of different people and broadly speaking things look the same and are in the same places.

We get a boilerplate-free API where shared state has the same simple get/set interface as React local state (yet can be encapsulated with reducers etc. if needed).

many CDNs nowadays ultimately source from npm (before caching the JavaScript on their own edge servers). So you'll be guaranteed to have the same library version on the CDN as on npm

Also Svelte is so great because developer do not need to worry about class names conflict, except of passing (global) classes to component (sic!).

For my point of view, and I've been annoyingly consistent in this for as long as people have been asking for this feature or something like it, style encapsulation is one of the core principles of Svelte's component model and this feature fundamentally breaks that. It would be too easy for people to use this feature and it would definitely get abused removing the style safety that Svelte previously provided.

maybe it can be a useful feature to keep consistency with the spread props

We don't want to treat it specially in certain contexts, and we don't want to silently convert a reactive variable into a store.

The above doesn't work for another unfortunate reason, it's not possible to write export let class = ''; instead CustomComponent because class is a reserved keyword and isn't allowed to be used as a variable name. The workaround would have to be to use some other prop name like maybe cssClass but then there's no "standard" by which all Svelte components can follow and every library will choose a different name which is cumbersome for users, because it creates scenarios like:

The primary motivation for this change is to have the same behavior between dom elements and wrapper components. Class directives are extremely convenient but that convenience is lost when a section of code needs to be converted to a component.

“I came to Rust from Haskell, and I feel that Haskell is a very elegant and safe language. The biggest differentiator for me is that there is a greater difference between high-performance code and idiomatic ‘clean’ code in Haskell than in Rust. Most Rust code looks like most other Rust code, even when it performs well. Haskell can become unfamiliar real quick if someone is operating under different libraries and goals from what you are typically doing. Small differences in syntax can result in huge differences in behavior, and Rust has more uniformity on that axis.”

Enumerator::Lazy#eager is added. It generates a non-lazy enumerator from a lazy enumerator.

It also resolves the problems with private operator methods (self + bar) and compound assignments with private writers and/or private operators (self += bar, self.foo += bar, where either + or foo= or both are private). It removes pretty much all edge cases in one blow.

It does change it, but it makes it much simpler in my opinion. It is basically "the receiver is statically the explicit literal special variable self or implicit." This gets rid of the current exception for private writer methods (self.foo = bar).

I decided to use the same name to keep the consistence with the Set class and because it was also written like that in the Array code.

Set#intersection already exists and is an alias for Set#&, so there's precedent for such a method to exist.

one other thing I wanted to ask was about whether we should allow multiple arrays to be passed as arguments. Array#difference and Array#union both allow this, so it might make sense to have Array#intersection also take multiple arguments.

Arrays are not sets. Trying to treat them as if they are is an error, and will create subtle problems. What should be the result of the following operations? [1, 1] | [1] [1] | [1, 1] Of course, there are more interesting examples. These two are to get you started. I don't care what the results currently are. I don't care what you think they should be. I can present extremely strong arguments for various answers. For this reason, I believe that #| is an ill-defined concept. Generalizing an ill-defined concept is a world of pain. If you insist on treating objects of one class as if they were members of a different class, there should be bumps in the road to at least warn you that maybe this is a bad idea. I'm not going to argue that we should remove or deprecate #|. I don't think of myself as a fanatic. But encouraging this sort of abuse of the type system just creates problems.

What about introducing concat! with the same behaviour as concat and deprecating concat. Then we could in the feature give concat the behaviour it deserves. It is confusing as well that this method modify the object and I think we should fix this.

Finally, from a practical point of view, we suggest the adoption of "privacy label," food-like notices, that provide the required information in an easily understandable manner, making the privacy policies easier to read.

it confuses people — including functional programmers. This is because we don’t use it consistently.

Why would a company want to have one system for people in France, Germany, and Italy and a separate one for people everywhere else?

“It’s strange to say, ‘Yeah, we’re going to respect the privacy of Europeans more than all other human beings all over the world,’”

I always prefer strictness, bad behavior should be uncovered as soon as possible or you are effectively encouraging it, which means they'll soon be back asking why it doesn't work for X and Y. Fix the problem at the source. I don't really care, but IMHO doing this seems like a charitable thing but it's actually the opposite.

In a sense, the current behavior is the best behavior, because it never works, you will never get the impression that it does in React.

The theory says that in distributed systems everything is eventually consistent but the pragmatic view of the real world says that we need to be real careful on what we choose to make eventually consistent.

What's the stage your project is currently at?

“The role of the hospitalist often is to take recommendations from a lot of different specialties and come up with the best plan for the patient,” says Tejal Gandhi, MD, MPH, CPPS, president and CEO of the National Patient Safety Foundation. “They’re the true patient advocate who is getting the cardiologist’s opinion, the rheumatologist’s opinion, and the surgeon’s opinion, and they come up with the best plan for the patient.”

no data loss will occur as long as producers and consumers handle this possibility and retry appropriately.

By electing a new leader as soon as possible messages may be dropped but we will minimized downtime as any new machine can be leader.

keep in mind that these guarantees hold as long as you are producing to one partition and consuming from one partition.

Kafka consumer offset management protocol to keep track of what’s been uploaded to S3

.

and is consistent within itself.

I am wont to deal with princes as well as with private men