diff options
| author | Lukasz Kasprzak <lukas@labunix.xyz> | 2026-08-12 13:33:03 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Lukasz Kasprzak <lukas@labunix.xyz> | 2026-08-12 13:33:03 +0200 |
| commit | 3d8bafa9c5b0f3ac2b16128413ea7ae977b1856a (patch) | |
| tree | 1e88377749c5ead0da118ccf7f2645839ba2a193 /test | |
| parent | 7d3b5ec831a60e8b63466251d63b2bd564acba2b (diff) | |
| download | colitur-3d8bafa9c5b0f3ac2b16128413ea7ae977b1856a.tar.gz colitur-3d8bafa9c5b0f3ac2b16128413ea7ae977b1856a.zip | |
docs(rite-ef): correct a false band-value comparison in the RG16(a) comment
Fix round 1 review, MINOR finding (item 4). Both precedence_ef.ml and
test_precedence_ef.ml claimed the loser-side Class2 conjunct held because
'entry 6's own band value (6) is lower than every entry [3, 11-14]' --
false on its face (6 is not lower than 3) and, worse, the claim proves the
opposite of what it was cited for: if a band-3 candidate really did
contest a Class1 Sunday, the lower number would win, meaning the Sunday
would lose, not beat it as claimed.
The conclusion itself was never wrong, only the justification. Against
entries 11-14 (sanctoral-origin Lord feasts) the numeric argument holds
(6 < 11-14). Against entry 3 (Epiphany, Ascension, Trinity, Corpus
Christi, Sacred Heart, Christ the King) it is not numeric at all but
structural: every band-3 celebration is temporal-origin, and
Precedence.resolve takes exactly one temporal candidate per day, so a
band-3 Lord feast IS that date's own single temporal candidate, never a
second one contesting a separately-produced Sunday -- there is no band
comparison to make in the first place. Comment-only; no behaviour change.
Diffstat (limited to 'test')
| -rw-r--r-- | test/test_precedence_ef.ml | 22 |
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/test/test_precedence_ef.ml b/test/test_precedence_ef.ml index 52de989..8465870 100644 --- a/test/test_precedence_ef.ml +++ b/test/test_precedence_ef.ml @@ -587,12 +587,22 @@ let disposition_cases = (* Conjunct 2/4, LOSER rank: RG 16(a) names "Dominica II classis", not any Sunday. A I-class Sunday (Advent/Lent/Passiontide, Low Sunday, {!band} entry 6) can never actually reach here as a loser against a - Class1-or-2 Lord winner in real banding (entry 6's own band value, 6, - beats every entry such a winner could occupy, 3/11-14), which is - exactly why the primary text restricts itself to II class -- but - [disposition] takes no [context] and cannot itself re-derive that - band fact, so the rank check is what actually enforces it here. - Sourced from [Temporal_ef.temporal]'s own real output (Advent I + Class1-or-2 Lord winner in real banding -- CORRECTED (fix round 1): + not because "entry 6's own band value (6) beats every entry such a + winner could occupy, 3/11-14" (WRONG: 6 is not lower than 3, and the + claim proves the opposite of what it was cited for anyway -- see + precedence_ef.ml's own corrected comment on this same conjunct for + the full argument). Against entries 11-14 the numeric claim genuinely + holds (6 < 11-14); against entry 3 (Epiphany/Ascension/Trinity/ + Corpus Christi/Sacred Heart/Christ the King) it is a STRUCTURAL fact + instead -- every band-3 celebration is temporal-origin, and + [Precedence.resolve] takes exactly one temporal candidate per day, so + a band-3 Lord feast IS that date's own single temporal candidate, + never a second one contesting a separately-produced Sunday. Either + way, this is exactly why the primary text restricts itself to II + class -- but [disposition] takes no [context] and cannot itself + re-derive that fact, so the rank check is what actually enforces it + here. Sourced from [Temporal_ef.temporal]'s own real output (Advent I Sunday 2026, Class1, "ef-advent-sunday-1"), the same row [disposition_cases]'s own RG95/RG109(a) entry above already uses. Dropping the [rank = Class2] conjunct on the loser would wrongly Omit |