Thu Apr 24 08:17:02 2003
>>I hope that's clearer now. There's a couple of research papers somewhere
>>on the Web, but they're rather low-level and look at the system from a
>>lambda-calculus angle, not from the object-based language angle. And the
>>original motivation had nothing to do with objects anyway, it was an
>>attempt to generalize term rewriting systems. I discovered the object
>>connection much later.
>No, it's more confused. I think you need to formalize your definitions
>better. But honestly, if you're at this level of work, I don't think it
>helps to hear more of this explanation from you.
You can find the formal definition of the language at page 97 of the
MPOOL 2001 workshop proceedings
(http://www.fz-juelich.de/nic-series/Volume7/Volume7.html). As I said,
the definition is from a calculus angle, so you may have some problems
relating it to the OO terminology. But if you point me to a formal
definition of Slate, I can try to explain the idea in the formal method
of your choice.