Hans Olsson

Collection of reviews: - Hans Olsson: "The experience with the proposal is that it is a small addition, easy to implement, and easy to understand. The implementation effort was less...

From phone-meeting: Ternary MCP-0034 -> Henrik? * Gerd: Should have time to implement

@gkurzbach status?

> It occurs wrong to me that the noDerivative annotation is attached to the derivative function rather than the function to which the derivative belongs. To me noDerivative is a...

> First, if `noDerivative = x` as used in the example shouldn't really work, aren't we missing a way of annotating a function so that it is clear from the...

> Are we relying on `x[1]` actually being a state determined by numeric integration as a guarantee for never differentiating the call partially with respect to this variable? When using...

> We're now talking about two orthogonal matters in this conversation. ... > 2. The observation that the `noDerivative` information – whatever it means – is a property of the...

> > However, if the assumption isn't satisfied the function itself may still "work", but the derivative will not be valid as a derivative for the function call. In that...

Doesn't seem enough interest in it at the moment.

I would say that A+B shouldn't be allowed for type compatible records (that are not operator records), and we need to clarify a lot here.