specs

[RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2]

btw.. hyperlink is just a generalized term for pointer.  it's a reference
that only needs the details required for completion of the reference from
within the target, not by the subsystem.

> This is a better specification of object but still leaves a lot out.
> Such as purpose.
> 
what is the purpose of the object in a Self or Smalltalk system?  what is
the purpose of a function or functor in a Lisp / ML system?  a pattern in a
BETA system?  (this is rhetoric)

what i suggest is that the object is the foundation for abstraction within
the Arrow language.  i intend it to encapsulate all the metaphors for
abstraction which we have dealt with in computing.  obviously, the teaming
up of objects is what gives the system its flesh.

> An simple example:
> At work we are given descriptions of output files that need to be
> created from our database.  We are told the record size.
> The starting and ending position of each field.
> The way data should be represented in each field.
> A description of what data should be placed in each field.
> 
do you want me to write code FOR you?  the arrow language is so simple that
it has already been described again and again by myself.  the system is
merely supposed to guarantee the consistency of the arrow system up to the
point of user interface.  the Vocabulary development should be relatively
independent of the implementation from this respect, and Vocabulary is the
chief benefit of such a system as this.

> A description of how the arrow language can be used to make a complete
>   system.
> 
ok.  that's about vocabulary, and i agree that it is the thing i will have
to elaborate the most upon.

> No implementation details except as hints.
> 
i can't describe the arrow language without thinking about how to make such
a system from arrows instead of a regular computing language, so that the
implementation details which i suggest are only for my thoughts about the
point of total (bootstrap and OS level) reflection.