From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-24 16:16:13
Larry Evans wrote:
> On 03/23/08 15:18, Eric Niebler wrote:
> > Proto's review ends this Friday. There's been good discussion, but very
> > few actual reviews. Please consider writing a review, if you haven't
> > already.
> Hi Eric,
> I've been struggling with the review; however, I still have
> a number of questions about the design. That's why I
> haven't been able to make a review that I'm reasonably
> sure would be justifiable. For instance, I've had problems
> understanding the difference between a proto expression
> and a grammar and summarizing that difference in some
> sort of succinct formula. My last attempt was:
I confess I don't understand your notation in that message. I also don't
understand what you're trying to get at with morphisms, a concept I
don't grasp. Do you think you could try again to explain what you're
trying to achieve?
> My tentative conclusion is that a better
> design, more along the lines of algebraic morphisms,
> would make proto easier to understand. The only way I could be
> reasonably sure of this would be to try and prototype this.
> Since that would take *way* too long, I'll just jump to
> that conclusion (and possibly several others) in my review
I would hope that if you're arguing for a better design that you could
describe what that better design looks like.
> and wait for your response about if it's not workable and why.
You'd have to say what "it" is before I can say whether it's workable or
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk