Re: An alternative to possreps

On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, Bob Badour <b..._at_badour.net> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I don't want to suggest that. I should have said that the statement "there is only one update operator: assignment" needs qualification. Received on Sun Jun 12 2011 - 09:27:28 CEST