Re: terminology
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:49:35 GMT
Message-ID: <zwmlg.59736$iF6.42540_at_pd7tw2no>
>
> Didn't think you were; thought you made a valuable point.
>
>
>
> You know, it's funny you should mention that.
>
> After responding to your last post, it got me thinking about
> how RT and PLT fit together. It occurred to me years ago
> that the RA would be an extremely useful addition to a
> general purpose programming language, and later, reading
> TTM, it was clear that others had already had the same idea.
>
> TTM is extremely well developed in the RT part. Indeed, it
> is the most thorough treatment of the topic I know of, and
> probably the only one to give it its due importance. But it is
> fairly uninspired in the PLT part. There is no mention of
> closures (in the PLT sense,) lambda, higher-order functions,
> recursion or tail-call optimization, process calculi or even
> message passing, type inference, parametric polymorphism
> (outside of its built-in use with relations) or metaprogramming
> anywhere in the book that I can find. (Although I only have
> the 2nd ed.; haven't gotten to the 3rd ed. yet.)
> ...
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:49:35 GMT
Message-ID: <zwmlg.59736$iF6.42540_at_pd7tw2no>
Marshall wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>> Marshall wrote: >>> paul c wrote: >>>> ... >>> Certainly there are different contexts in which the term "variable" >>> is used, and across those different contexts there may be >>> incompatible meanings. I was speaking of the programming >>> languages theory ("PLT") context. So I am speaking of regular >>> data variables, rather than logic variables--they are quite >>> different. >>> ... >> Okay, not trying to give you a hard time,
>
> Didn't think you were; thought you made a valuable point.
>
>
>> as I liked the economical >> phrasing, it was just that the start of the original msg mentioned "in >> the c.d.t. context" and i feel a conventional programming language >> must be a mere servant of that.
>
> You know, it's funny you should mention that.
>
> After responding to your last post, it got me thinking about
> how RT and PLT fit together. It occurred to me years ago
> that the RA would be an extremely useful addition to a
> general purpose programming language, and later, reading
> TTM, it was clear that others had already had the same idea.
>
> TTM is extremely well developed in the RT part. Indeed, it
> is the most thorough treatment of the topic I know of, and
> probably the only one to give it its due importance. But it is
> fairly uninspired in the PLT part. There is no mention of
> closures (in the PLT sense,) lambda, higher-order functions,
> recursion or tail-call optimization, process calculi or even
> message passing, type inference, parametric polymorphism
> (outside of its built-in use with relations) or metaprogramming
> anywhere in the book that I can find. (Although I only have
> the 2nd ed.; haven't gotten to the 3rd ed. yet.)
> ...
I'm hip only to the elementary parts of TTM but would said that it doesn't "proscribe" any of those features, rather it is Tutorial D that doesn't include them.
p Received on Mon Jun 19 2006 - 02:49:35 CEST