On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > Oops, ignore that previous response ... > > On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a > way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morning coffee > yet) Are you sure? Because it doesn't seem to match my understanding of the meaning of the word, and what you gave as an alternative seems closer. If I had to describe the concept of idempotence, I might choose something like: Take object A. Apply it as input to operation O, and get object B as output. Take object B, apply it as input to operation O, and get object C as output. If the nature of operation O is such that objects B and C are guaranteed to always be identical, no matter what object A was, then operation O is categorized as being idempotent. That's not producing the same output with the same input (which is how I read the explanation that hede gave); that's producing the same output with both the original input *and* the output obtained by processing that original input. The definitions found in foldoc and in the Jargon File seem compatible with that. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature