From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Mar 13 22:05:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 06:05:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 92752 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 06:05:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 06:05:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.177) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 06:05:17 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2E65Fu17312 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:05:15 -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 ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:05:14 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16lOMV-0000i1-00 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:05:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:05:15 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] lojban application in wearable computing Message-ID: <20020314060515.GB2700@twcny.rr.com> References: <02031317374300.01243@linux> 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 Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:36:23PM -0800, Ted Reed wrote: > > > Perhaps not lisp, but scheme tends to be organized around predicate > > > syntax and brackets to define things that are more than one word. > > > > not necessarily, but again if your list head symbols are defined as > > predicates (or functions returning a boolean value) it would be like you > > say. > > My question is, why do we even have to base it on a preexisting proglang? It > seems to me that lojban already has its own syntax and trying to force it > into the confines of a preexisting language would limit the effectiveness of > using lojban in the first place. Well, it still has to be based on a model of a programming language. The "samtrosku" idea I posted on the Wiki was procedural; I realize that this is not necessarily the best fit, because I had to really force the concept of "blocks" into it, basically turning tu'e...tu'u into one huge logical connective. On the other hand, the logical connectives themselves fit nicely. -- la rab.spir noi sarji zo gumri