Maude / OBJ language family

[RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2]

I definitely have to agree with Alexis Read about the work being done in
those specification languages.

Everything he said was an excellent issue that Tunes is and should be
addressing in a universal kind of way. Also, it's not just the mathematical
basis that helps, but the ability to use the language's view features to
develop category-theoretic ideas as actual usable code. However, it's a
decent distance from the kind of compilation structure needed to support
Tunes.

Personally, I'm working right now on integrating and expanding on the ideas
in Maude into the Arrow code. Specifically, I'm re-implementing a lot of the
structure, and adding onto it whatever is necessary to deal with the
additional lack of constraints within Arrow. (Now if only I had a working
TeX environment out here to develop my papers. :/) That basically means that
you can expect some Arrow Modules and expression-oriented processing. One of
the difficult parts is developing a systematic way to annotate objects
(Tunes-style), and also to deal with the interaction between seperate
specifications. A lot of this amounts to complicated issues involved with
taking a data structure and getting an Arrow view of it, reversing the
process.

Sorry, this is a bit of a ramble, but I thought it a good time to tell
people what I'm doing.

Thanks,
~