[SCL] analytic operators and axioms

[Robert E. Kent]

As a followup, I have added the following pertinent sentence from McCarthy
"If both the analytic and synthetic functions are given, we do not have the
difficult and sometimes unsolvable analysis problems that arise when
languages are described synthetically only" to the opening paragraph of
http://www.ontologos.org/SCL%20Abstract%20Syntax.pdf

Robert

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent at ontologos.org>
To: "Tanel Tammet" <tammet at staff.ttu.ee>
Cc: "SCL" <scl at philebus.tamu.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [SCL] analytic operators and axioms


> Style smyle! Style is important, but I am more interested in getting the
> analytic operators and axioms included in the document in whatever style
is
> appropriate. I feel that with any of the three parts (synthetic operators,
> analytic operators or axioms) missing, then the abstract syntax
> specification of SCL is incomplete.
>
> And speaking of style, I have been out of the loop for a while, but I
> believe the abstract syntax is related to the programming style of
> processing, with the synthetic/constructor operators more compatible with
> descriptive programming style (functional programming languages?) and the
> analytic/selector operators more compatible with imperative programming
> style (algebraic programming languages?). Is this true?
>
> Robert
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tanel Tammet" <tammet at staff.ttu.ee>
> To: "SCL" <scl at philebus.tamu.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [SCL] analytic operators and axioms
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Chris Menzel wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:58:35PM -0500, John Sowa wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Robert and Chris,
> > >>
> > >>I like the following description of the abstract syntax:
> > >>
> > >>   http://www.ontologos.org/SCL%20Abstract%20Syntax.pdf
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>It is more readable than the current SCL document,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Well, I do find it virtuously elegant, but more readable?  "There is a
> > >collection of analytic/selector operators on SCL formulas with the nine
> > >subgroup clusters in one-one correspondence with the nine
> > >synthetic/constructor operators (their inverse)..."  Now *I* like that
> > >way of talking, but it sure sounds like the same sort of discourse you
> > >randomly excoriate in the current document.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree. Despite the elegance, it is harder to read than is necessary.
> >
> > Here is a concrete suggestion regarding the analytic description of
> > abstract syntax:
> >
> > a)  Let us avoid analytic description in the main body of the SCL draft.
> >      If we just use synthetic descriptions (the "ordinary" stuff), the
> spec
> >      is easier to read and shorter.
> >
> > b)  Let us put the analytic description into the special appendix
> >      chapter of the spec. The analytic description does have its
> >      nice points, hence why not include it in a way that does not
> >      hurt readability of the main body nor influence the
> >      presentation of the main body in any way.
> >
> >      The only thing is that the current analytic description probably
> >      needs some minor modifications once the main parts of
> >      SCL spec (using synthetic style) are ready, so as to
> >      conform exactly to the synthetic presentation.
> >
> > In this way we should be able to eat our proverbial cake and have it
too.
> >
> > Tanel Tammet
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > SCL mailing list
> > SCL at philebus.tamu.edu
> > http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/scl
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCL mailing list
> SCL at philebus.tamu.edu
> http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/scl
>