|
Re: Busy Bees!: msg#00058os.tunes
I repost this because I don't see it on the list. I have written: > > zccap74 wrote: > > > > For those that haven't looked at maude or cafeOBJ recently, this is what > > people > > have been up to... > > What I'd STILL like to know is; what can these two languages NOT do? What > > makes > > them unsuitable as languages for tunes? Personally, I can't see anything > > that > > makes them unsuitable. They implement good reflection, coinductive and > > inductive > > techniques, and can support any logic mentioned in the posts over the last > > few > > months. I guess what I'm trying to get is a response from someone saying > > either > > 'yes I'll look at it' or 'it's not suitable for these reasons' > > The ball is in your court guys! > > I'm reading the documentation, in particular I'm interested in the > notion of "Behavioral Satisfaction" but honestly I'm not qualified > to express a strong opinion like "it's (not) suitable for these > reasons". Currently I'm looking in different directions and I'm > trying to learn as much as possible. Best regards, -- Massimo Dentico |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | RE: A mathematical foundation of reflexion?: 00058, btanksley |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Design Process (was: Re: Refactoring...): 00058, Francois-Rene Rideau |
| Previous by Thread: | Busy Bees!i: 00058, zccap74 |
| Next by Thread: | Thoughts on provably secure systems: 00058, Paul_Campbell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |