From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu May 18 06:34:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15316 invoked from network); 18 May 2000 13:34:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 May 2000 13:34:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.38) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 May 2000 13:34:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 42224 invoked by uid 0); 18 May 2000 13:34:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000518133412.42223.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 12.128.10.26 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2000 06:34:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [12.128.10.26] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] More on lojban programatic semantics: Strong typing and inferencing of types Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 06:34:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la brukcr cusku di'e >On the other hand, "poi" implies that the characteristic named is an >*essential* aspect of the thing named - this is much closer to the >meaning of a type in a PL. I suggested {noi} because you called it an annotation, which I took to be some additional information about something already known. If you meant it to be a definition, then {poi} is better. >Ehm, I think a namcu is a valid mekso, but I wasn't (yet) talking about >type hierarchy - just giving multiple examples. These bridi were meant >to be examples of declarations. Ok. I don't really know what a mekso is. Is {li pa cu mekso} a sensible statement? >My understanding was that naclu (and the other similar gismu) followed a >sumti pattern of "x1 is of value x2". So naclu >means that x1 is a rational, whose value is given by x2. So in the >example above, I would be saying that "la stokuot." is an *unspecified* >rational number. X2 is the value. So you could "initialize" a variable >at the same time by including x2. Interesting, but I'm not sure what goes in your x1. Not a value, but the name of a value? >A numerical value in x2 is adimensional, but the things in x1 *are* >dimensioned, because the gismu asserts that this is so. Of course. But the things in x1 are not numbers. They are things like people, cars, tables, rocks, etc. >Further >,something in x2 could be dimensioned if it was identified earlier as >being in a dimension. I don't understand what you mean. The number 2 is always adimensional, even when there are two meter things and two gram things. >In this case, either the dimensions have to agree, >or there has to be a reasonable conversion. So: > >la numbr. namcu li pe --- "Number" is a number, whose value is 1 This is not how {namcu} is defined. {namcu} has only one place. Maybe you mean {klani}? >la distens. minli la numbr. -- "Distance" is in miles, the value 1 This would be inconsistent. Do you say {dy minli lo namcu} or {dy minli lo se namcu}, using your {namcu}? Or both are right? >la triplen. mitre la distens. -- Either an error (la distens. is miles, >la triplen. is meters) or conversion of values automatically takes place. It is not clear to me what it is that you are naming {la distens}. Is it a number? If not, it can't be a se mitre. If it is a number, it can't be a minli, because numbers don't have length. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com