opencog-dev team mailing list archive

[Cassio Pennachin <cassio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> the question is whether to 1. temporarily support this hack which  
> PLN is deeply dependent on, or whether to 2. refactor PLN to use VHs  
> _before_ completing the port (the completion of the port = situation  
> where PLN tests run successfully).

The problem is the lifetime of "temporary" hacks.  The vast majority  
of this population has proven to live a lot longer than we'd wish  
for.  Although we haven't eliminated ALL such hacks while moving code  
from Novamente to OpenCog, we've tried to get rid of the worst ones.  
Your wording exemplifies everyone's attitude about it: the port would  
be considered complete while still including the hack, and after that  
the motivation to remove it is likely to vanish.

> But my best guess is that choosing #2 will take much more time than  
> the whole process of doing #1 + verifying that PLN tests run +  
> refactoring PLN to using VersionHandles _gradually_ + eventually  
> removing the hack from the atomspace.

You may be right.  I'm willing to consider with this route as long as  
the gradual aspect is removed, and we only consider the port as done  
once the hack is removed.  This would satisfy my main goal, which is  
to keep this hack away from the main code line.

Cassio