specs

[RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2]

> I didn't ask for specifications, but I think that these are too low
> level. In fact, they are implementation specifications. And I think
> that we first need to specify what something should allow us to do
> before trying to see how to implement it. It seems a bit early to talk
> about pointers, memory chunks all that stuff. 
> In fact, I think that we should first specify our needs, and then see
> how we can build something that can fullfill them.
> 
i've already specified the arrow language!  the only thing left is
vocabulary!  can't you understand that?  it's not some arbitrary computer
programming language where the concepts are opinion-based.

in case you missed it, here is the language, everyone:

arrows are abstract objects with N slots, the "default" being 2.  iteration
on the default arrow type yields multi-dimensional arrow types.  each slot
is a reference to an arrow.  all arrows are available for reference.

THAT'S IT!  everything else is vocabulary which builds conceptual
frameworks.  if you are looking for more specifics on the definition of the
arrow language, LOOK NO FURTHER!

you people really are dense.

this is the largest container for semantics ever devised!  it's obviously
very much bigger than you can imagine.

witness a recent statement from the discussion:  the way to achieve tunes is
not to add code, but to take code away from a specification.