On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 15:37 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:29:29AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote: > > samselpla (http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/samselpla) is the > > generally accepted term for computerized plans, unfortunately, > > this can apply to both source code and compiled binaries. > > Actually, no: > > x1=p2 is computer program source code created by x2=p1 with intended > result (state/process) x3=p3=s2 on computer x4=s1 Who's to say that executable binary code can not be source code? Further, how does this apply to interpreted languages? > > I've suggested making new words to delineate between samselpla > > which is in a condition to be executed, > > samtci or samru'e I *really* don't see samselpla which is in a condition to be executed as samru'e. Maybe ka'e samru'e, but not samru'e. samtci I suppose works. > > and samselpla which must still be prepared. > > samselpla See above. Additionally, the definition in jbovlaste doesn't vibe with the way I've been using it, and I wonder just when it was added and who decided to restrict it so. -- Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part