From taral@taral.net Sat Sep 02 10:22:27 2000
Return-Path: <taral@taral.net>
Received: (qmail 7619 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2000 17:22:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Sep 2000 17:22:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.taral.net) (128.83.113.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2000 17:22:26 -0000
Received: by mail.taral.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id B658C26333; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:22:24 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:22:21 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [lojban] samselpla vs. samjva
To: phma@oltronics.net
Cc: lojban@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <00090208210400.00887@neofelis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; BOUNDARY="8323328-1804289383-967915344=:20635"
Message-Id: <20000902172224.B658C26333@mail.taral.net>
From: Taral <taral@taral.net>

--8323328-1804289383-967915344=:20635
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii

On 2 Sep, Pierre Abbat wrote:

>>Since lujvo aren't standardized, I'd like to suggest a change from
>>"samselpla" to "samjva". I tend to view "samselpla" (computer type-of
>>plan) as "computer architecture", whereas "samjva" (computer type-of
>>rule(s)) really echoes my idea of what a "computer program" is.

> How about "seltibyste" (list of commands)?

I would agree, but "program" is more than "commands". "seltibyste" seems
to be more "computer script" than "computer program". Consider a Haskell
program. That's certainly not a list of commands...

-- 
Taral <taral@taral.net>
Please use PGP/GPG to send me mail.

--8323328-1804289383-967915344=:20635
Content-Type: APPLICATION/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.1.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEABECAAYFAjmxN1AACgkQ7rh4CE+nYEknWQCdGfx5mg+Qcxd/rzMJwY5U7niu
EEMAmwVV63VbiF0L3ExfjkEgK5sc4x3a
=K91L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8323328-1804289383-967915344=:20635--

