Re: An alternative to possreps

From: Bob Badour <bob_at_badour.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:41:51 -0700
Message-ID: <Gd-dnZv8K5w_zGnQnZ2dnUVZ5vsAAAAA_at_giganews.com>


David BL wrote:

> On Jun 11, 10:04 pm, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
>

>>On 9 jun, 08:28, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree that update operators are an important consideration.
>>
>>>Nevertheless I don't think type systems per se should have anything to
>>>do with specifying what update operators are available on variables.
>>
>>Note that TTM doesn't do any such thing.  D&D are quite explicit in
>>stating that in fact there is only one update operator : assignment.

>
> It's clear that every update to a variable can be regarded as
> logically equivalent to some assignment to that variable. However I
> fail to see how this observation is very illuminating. Indeed it
> seems to have the opposite effect by suggesting there is only one kind
> of update so don't waste your time studying the very rich and
> interesting area of specialised update operators.

You say that as if a careful separation of concerns were a detriment to innovation instead of a necessity given our limited minds. Received on Sun Jun 12 2011 - 07:41:51 CEST

Original text of this message