Not bitter, merely dismayed and very sad. 40 years ago Logjam seemed to have great promise, but (as I later found) it had already spent its promise and, despite years fiddling and a couple of almost total restarts, has only gotten further and further from its goal (monoparsing possibly aside). The only real fix I can conceive is to junk everything you have now (except as a pile of spare parts, some of which may eventually be of use) and go back to square one, with a a higher order intensional logic rather than FOPL and a careful, step by step construction by reversable transformations. Good luck with any phase of that plan.On Tuesday, November 7, 2017, 3:51:29 AM CST, <suke...@gmail.com> wrote:@stevo: Sorry I don't understand the "make it the same as it was before". From my point of view:I hope I mad myself clearer :-)
- Establishing language rules "forever" is not possible. Therefore some changes will be necessary. This is what called "evolution".
- Forking may be interesting. It may be an pure experiment, a "feature branch", a fix, etc.
- Reintegrating a branch to the core actually changes the core! This is why it must be done very carefully, in order to not break initial intents of the language.
Le mardi 7 novembre 2017 09:59:20 UTC+1, stevo a écrit :sykynder: You mention re-integrating forks back into the core language. How do you change something and then make it the same as it was before? And why would you want to?stevo--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .