[SCL] Again: new version of SCL draft attached

[Tanel Tammet]

Hi,

Chris Menzel wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:39:54PM +0200, Tanel Tammet wrote:
>  
>
>>>Please, let us not make more divisions than are required. Chris has
>>>been putting valiant work into writing a unified technical
>>>specification. 
>>>      
>>>
>>Which is otherwise fine, but as it is presented now, I am
>>incapable of fully understanding the presentation.
>>
>>Considering myself a typical audience for the SCL spec, 
>>    
>>
>
>True -- then let's not confuse the SCL spec with the technical spec.  
>A friendlier SCL spec can and will be extracted from the technical spec.
>
>  
>
>>Look: I am not just complaining that it is hard to understand. I have
>>a written a lot of structured, hopefully understandable chapters
>>presenting simple stuff, which IMHO could be perceived as core, with
>>the hope that we can continue building fancier stuff on this core.
>>
>>I have seen no serious comments or suggestions on these chapters.
>>There is currently nothing I can do. Only Chris and me are writing
>>material for publication, I cannot understand what Chris writes, Chris
>>does not comment or modify anything I write.
>>    
>>
>
>This is only for lack of time, and is by no means meant to be a slight.
>I am stretched terribly thin right now.  It's all I can do to try to
>hold up my end on the tech spec until I'm done teaching, in about two
>weeks.  (Do you not have teaching obligations?)  I began writing up
>comments on your stuff, a lot of which I liked, but as I got into that
>it seemed to me it was going to require rather extensive revisions.
>Sorry I can't be more specific at the moment.  It would take me probably
>6-8 hours to write it all up.
>
>  
>
>>IMHO we are badly stuck right now.
>>    
>>
>
>This is a very pessimistic and unwarranted spin.  As soon as I write up
>the identity stuff and get it out of my head, I'll turn to a careful
>reading of your stuff and will submit comments and suggested revisions,
>and won't write anything new on the tech spec til I'm done.
>  
>
I'd appreciate this a lot.

What I consider both necessary and 1st priority:

a) You and Pat read through the SCL spec draft as sent
    by me on 16 nov.

b) When doing so, you concentrate on the chapters on SCL
    core abstract syntax,   SCL core to TFOL translation
     and standalone MT of SCL core,
    (temporarily) not spending time on commenting or
    making changes to other chapters.

c)  You should send messages about principal acceptance
     or non-acceptance of these chapters.

d)  In case there are changes you want to make
     (minor presentational or editorial issues can be postponed)
      you should produce a new  version of the 16 nov SCL
      spec draft with these changes  actually made in the three
      chapters noted.
    
After that it is very likely that we will agree on the SCL
core, and THEN can move forward to modules like
identity, seqvars and all the other issues.

Ie, I am much less worried about the identity, seqvars
and extensions than about having easily readable chapters
on the minimalistic core of SCL,  such that we all agree on
these chapters and will continue writing the rest as based
on these agreed-upon chapters.

Some side notes:

  - the SCL core should be minimalistic. We have
     to restrict  the urge to put equality, etc etc
     into the SCL core. There are other chapters
     for these.

  - I do not see any strict need to present SCL core
     abstract syntax in EBNF or other such formalisms.
     It would be desirable to employ such formalisms
     in  (a) defining concrete syntaxes (b) possibly giving
     full SCL abstract syntax in a separate summarising chapter.

When I wrote that we are IMHO stuck, then the
reason is exactly that the steps described above     
have not been taken, and any further work without
these steps is premature and inefficient in the SCL
context. I see no point in continuing with SCL as
a groupwork on a standard (as opposed to private
research) until these steps have been taken.

Hence I'd also suggest NOT to proceed like (cite):
"As soon as I write up the identity stuff and get it out of my head, ..."
since it is not known WHEN you write up
the identity stuff and it is not sure you can get the identity
out of your head after that, and it is not sure that in case you
write up the identity stuff BEFORE we all agree on
the core, this identity stuff you write will be usable.

I understand that you may not have time to take
the steps outlined above. Then we could simply
say that the whole SCL effort is stuck until you have
that time.

Regards teaching: yes, sure I have teaching obligations,
as well as several other obligations. I see the SCL effort
as an important prerequisite for the efficiency of my
research and implementation work on deduction issues
on SW languages. A lot of time spent on research
and implementation will be wasted until we have SCL.

Regards,
          Tanel Tammet
        

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/scl/attachments/20031118/fdca64fc/attachment.htm