From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon Mar 11 20:05:29 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 04:05:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 92809 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 04:04:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 04:04:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 04:04:43 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2C44fu10186 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:04:40 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16kdWj-0000S3-00 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:04:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:04:40 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Programming Languages for Lojban Message-ID: <20020312040440.GA807@twcny.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 06:22:00PM +0000, Robert J. Chassell wrote: > I am looking forward to your write ups about turning Lojban into a > humanly speakable programming language. What is involved in making > type checking optional? (The Lojban grammar makes it so, since you > have a choice of including or not including a restrictive clause, > i.e., one that tells you the type of the argument.) Under which > circumstances will people prefer to use an imperative format, in which > the computer is a robot that responds to orders, or prefer a format in > which the computer answers questions? If you look at my wiki entry [samtrosku specification], you'll see one idea for instructing a computer in Lojban. This is a procedural language, definitely has some rough spots, and perhaps doesn't match up with Lojban as well as Prolog or Lisp would - but then, I don't know what Prolog is like, or how lisp expressions would map to Lojban. -- Rob Speer