Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:22:41 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTgoV-0004ZH-OO; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:22:03 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:21:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTgnU-0004Z9-5U for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:21:00 -0800 Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTgnN-0004Yd-UW for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:21:00 -0800 Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so1427261iwn.40 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:20:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=2Q3EYGQ09S4V+Bc65h+Su5ica5dsSgnuKuRsIRcn1P0=; b=wvneuqx0Yk3i2VIOlUB1HrVU1y2Q18UQuXgw3JyMJQDjHe6MDLeS2fUnCLYtNesDNQ wg5zq0p84UntOX5fvlE7u26a4mAmbD+l9GZ4NMQuETo/+LsvhAvg7jpG9bzdgpuG+9rU 7+cGpWwc/n3AUIiopNG0sjtuGaldNCr7Ttm84= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=mNmboDe/c4y1EIWBzQrk7oCbpJfKN5LN1ngS3rm/s6e4NiQyN0Ca4yO7gzKNSQqz4C 3l72YEGFNfrQxUjIqJkwgIA3ZqCxRovWlPSc4B2KMfGMjd3u0F0XoqZqAeYGQbFjRDCD sYrec/vcbR1SXQ+orMLNO52kdmDx+0HU/7s5E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.10.200 with SMTP id q8mr1201350ibq.122.1292617253049; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:20:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.206.146 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:20:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101217133000.GA32499@alice.local> References: <20101217133000.GA32499@alice.local> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:20:52 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: defining "debug" From: Jonathan Jones To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325574bbe32d9370497a0e8fa X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: eyeonus@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 2736 Lines: 75 --000325574bbe32d9370497a0e8fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM, .alyn.post. wrote: > I'm working on a lujvo for "debug," as in "locate and correct errors > in computer program code." > > I've got: > > cfila : c1 (property - ka) is a flaw/fault/defect in c2 causing c3. > sisku : s1 seeks/searches/looks for property s2 among set s3. > > which creates the lujvo cfisisku, which one could define: > > s1 debugs computer program c2 for flaw/property c1==s2 causing c3 > I'd go with: "s1 searches c2==s3 for flaw(s) c1==s2 causing c3" I don't think "proof reader" is anymore apt than "debugger", I think both are equivalently {cfisisku}, the former being a {lo se tcidu cfisksku}, the latter a {lo samselpla cfisisku}. {lo cfisisku} is merely an agent that searches for imperfections - a mechanic is a {lo karce cfisisku}, for instance. -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --000325574bbe32d9370497a0e8fa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM, .alyn.p= ost. <alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:
I'm working on a lujvo for "debug," as in "locate and co= rrect errors
in computer program code."

I've got:

cfila : c1 (property - ka) is a flaw/fault/defect in c2 causing c3.
sisku : s1 seeks/searches/looks for property s2 among set s3.

which creates the lujvo cfisisku, which one could define:

s1 debugs computer program c2 for flaw/property c1=3D=3Ds2 causing c3

I'd go with:

"s1 searches c2=3D=3Ds3 fo= r flaw(s) c1=3D=3Ds2 causing c3"

I don't think "proof = reader" is anymore apt than "debugger", I think both are equ= ivalently {cfisisku}, the former being a {lo se tcidu cfisksku}, the latter= a {lo samselpla cfisisku}.

{lo cfisisku} is merely an agent that searches for imperfections - a me= chanic is a {lo karce cfisisku}, for instance.



--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmi= ma le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--000325574bbe32d9370497a0e8fa--