[SCL] Chris: the new version?

[Chris Menzel]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:19:40AM +0200, Tanel Tammet wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
> How is the new version of the spec you are writing moving along?

Hi Tanel, thanks for asking.  After getting a good start last week,
I've been slowed a bit this week by test prep/grading in both classes.
Also, my colleague Colin Allen and I also are implementing an online
examination feature for the web site we put together for a McGraw-Hill
logic text (http://poweroflogic.com) and it has needed quite a bit of
careful testing -- instructors will be relying on it to grade proofs and
truth tables for them perfectly.  We get paid real money for this, so,
after teaching, it takes priority.  I'll be done with the testing today
and will be working on SCL beginning this evening and through the
weekend.

> Sorry about being pushy, but in case you do not really have time to
> work on it right now, I'd like to move on and write a temporary
> stand-alone semantics chapter (based on your paper from summer, but
> with some simplifications, as you can guess), plus a chapter on SCL in
> KIF concrete syntax and the few first chapters on modules.  Can you
> send the new version in a day or not?  I'd really prefer to work on
> your version, but if we cannot have it now, we still need to move
> further.

Can you wait til Monday?  I'll have a much more complete version by
then, as I'll have a chance to finish up the section on identity.  I
appreciate very much your taking the lead here, and your pushing us to
keep things moving.  At the same time, let's be careful not to move
*too* fast.  It is difficult to undo things that aren't done right.  We
need to make sure we are all clear about each new development -- you and
Pat are remarkably prolific, and it takes a bit of time to digest
everything that flows from your flying fingers!  But your point about
keeping our forward motion going is well taken.  I'm just arguing that
we be careful to strike the right balance to ensure what we produce has
the form, content, and level of quality we want.

-chris