Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:48:53 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2 wrote:
> no compiler yet. the nodes would be nothing, be other arrows, or be
> groups of arrows (read 'be' as 'point to'). no code, as yet, would be
Don't confuse syntax with semantics. There has to be a clear distinction.
That is, the meaning of an arrow is DIFFERENT from its use in making
connections between other arrows. Yes, technically the arrow's meaning is
a pointer to some other arrows or whatever, but this "pointer" is not the
same as the pointer the arrow is denoting by its instance in the current
> generated until complete reflection is achieved. this entire
> development is centered around building a population of data-structures
> from which can be read logical meaning. in other words, these
> data-structures would form a reasoning system (interpreted by the
> underlying c-program at first, that is.)
The logical meaning is interpreted by the C code, and gradually is added
into the system, is that what you are thinking?
David Manifold <email@example.com>
This message is placed in the public domain.