Subject: Re: [lojban] lojban application in wearable computing

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:05:15 -0500

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