Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsgate.cistron.nl!transit3.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:59:37 +0100
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam@vrijdag.org>
Organization: Pakhuis
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: repeating groups
References: <1140214907.355958.288410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <1140241468.587046.72120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <BxEJf.208$F94.78@trndny02>   <1140284344.049753.181230@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <43f7c540$0$11064$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>   <otRJf.1772$VI6.209@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>   <1140329504.824686.293790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>   <1140336725.827201.24000@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <1140342848.370220.311130@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <1140382166.489659.19990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   <1140394855.387165.242480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   <1140415983.632579.49520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   <1140421399.358038.67150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <1140497679.150256.98110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <1140510364.302633.157300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <dtemhb$po9$1@emma.aioe.org> <1140542372.668262.246220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1140542372.668262.246220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <43fb5506$0$11076$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.92.225.151
X-Trace: 1140544775 news.xs4all.nl 11076 [::ffff:82.92.225.151]:29065
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:36485

Marshall Spight wrote:
> x wrote:
> 
>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>>>dawn wrote:
>>
>>>>I always thought of programming as writing proofs.
>>>
>>>I wish it was *more* like writing proofs.
>>
>>I wish it was more like stating the problem, not the proof.
> 
> Uh, yeah. That's what I meant to say.
> 
> It should be more like stating theorems, and having the compiler
> prove them or disprove them.

That is the prolog way.