<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4dd27f07-391a-2ff8-072b-51897fc31f6b@oracle.com"><font
size="+1"><tt>Secondarily, perhaps totality isn't the right
term; maybe we need a word for "good enough to satisfy the
checker", where the checker is generous in letting us be
sloppy regarding silly values. </tt></font></blockquote>
<br>
In searching for names for "total enough to satisfy the type
checker", it briefly occurred to me to make an appeal to the notion
from real analysis of "almost everwhere" (often written a.e., or
Remi might have seen this as p.p.):<br>
<br>
   <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_everywhere">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_everywhere</a><br>
<br>
Though, the analogy isn't quite right because a.e. is not picky
about what measure-zero set the property does not hold. Here, we
want to outline a _specific_ set on which the property is allowed to
not hold.<br>
<br>
We toyed with "optimistically total", which is appealing because the
cases that are covered are the ones we hope will never show up
(hence the optimism.)Â <br>
<br>
Another variant of totality is "effectively total". We've used the
phrase "effectively final" to mean "you didn't say final, but I
figured it out anyway."Â The same could apply to things like
covering all the subtypes of a sealed type. It is a more friendly
name than o.t., but it may not be as obvious that there's a
strange-shaped remainder. <br>
<br>
There might also be phrases that don't include the t-word, but I
think a modifier on the t-word is probably better. What I like
about a modifier is that true totality is a degenerate case of
{almost, effectively, optimistically}-total. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>