02 Jan 1999 00:01:46 +0100
>>>>> "Brian" == RE01 Rice Brian T EM2 <BRice@vinson.navy.mil> writes:
>> 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.
Brian> i've already specified the arrow language! the only thing
Brian> left is vocabulary! can't you understand that? it's not
Brian> some arbitrary computer programming language where the
Brian> concepts are opinion-based.
Hmm, No need to shout. I understand that you can be picky about your
"baby", and disappointed that the arrow language does not receive the
success that you think it deserves, but please try to stay calm and
gentle. I may have missed certain things, but please don't blame me
like that. I am new to Tunes, and have to catch up with every thing
that you discussed in the past.
By the way, I was talking about specs of the needs, not the
solutions. Do we have a clear description of our needs ? (I can't
reach tunes.org at the moment). What de we want a user to be able to
do with our system ?
Brian> in case you missed it, here is the language, everyone:
Brian> arrows are abstract objects with N slots, the "default"
Brian> being 2. iteration on the default arrow type yields
Brian> multi-dimensional arrow types. each slot is a reference to
Brian> an arrow. all arrows are available for reference.
Brian> THAT'S IT! everything else is vocabulary which builds
Brian> conceptual frameworks. if you are looking for more
Brian> specifics on the definition of the arrow language, LOOK NO
Brian> you people really are dense.
Brian> this is the largest container for semantics ever devised!
Brian> it's obviously very much bigger than you can imagine.
Well, it does not look very new to me. Except the fact you call your
data structures arrows. Arrows are equivalent to C-like structs which
can contain only 'pointers' to other structs, aren't they ?