yup, agreed :)
Monica J. Martin wrote:
>
>>> Khalaf: The def is not supposed to yield an algorithm directly, but
>>> to clearly and intuitively explain what this compliance def is
>>> checking for. The algorithm one may use to check "observable
>>> compliance" should not a brute force one from the def, and that's
>>> quite obvious to tell (you could have infinitely many
>>> minimum-no-fault-...-completions). Also, the definition is still
>>> being clarified.
>>
>>
> mm1: Please, use the word 'conformance.' Compliance is most often a
> regulatory, mandatory requirement that has legal implications on
> software performance. I believe in the context of this discussion
> conformance, not compliance applies. They are very different things.
> Thank you.
