[SCL] SCL basic consensus badly needed

[pat hayes]

>>
>>Yes, caching is always an issue if we have nay kind of re-coding 
>>going on, obviously. BUt again, I don't think this is 
>>unsurmountable, even in the worst case; and I suspect that the 
>>problem will be solved before we get to it, in practice, by 
>>existing and emerging SW markup conventions.
>
>SW markup conventions cannot solve this without coherent semantics presented
>in the Lbase style, be the target language based on SCL, CL or something else.
>
>I guess most of the people engaged with SCL, especially you yourself,
>see our SCL project in this light: to be a usable base language
>for translating other languages into.
>
>If that is the case, then usefulness for translating into
>is really what we are after, and the language itself,
>outside the translation aspects, is of little importance.
>
>Hence we should take the translation aspects most
>seriously, IMHO. They are the very reason for SCL.
>Maybe people disagree, but I am rather inclined to
>think that this is a common understanding or
>motivation for SCL.

I agree, but to serve this Lbase-style role for OTHER languages does 
not require us to further translate SCL into a subset of itself, 
surely?

If you want to translate uniformly into SFOL rather than SCL itself, 
I agree that a uniform translation is essential and that we should 
probably settle on the uniform holds/app version for the 
extendability reasons you have already pointed out.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes