[E-Lang] Operator expansion names, Part 1: Intro
Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:35:01 -0700
I, Zooko, wrote:
> MarkM wrote:
> > However, the first violation just bothers me in ways the second one doesn't.
> > The point is not to revisit this controversy, but to point out that, prior
> > to seeing these two violations, I would not have been able to think to state
> > correctness criteria that would have prohibited the first while allowing the
> > second. I think it must be this way.
> I don't know if mere announcement of syntactic tastes are welcome at this point,
> but I am bothered by both of these.
I should have mentioned that I very much approve of the programme you suggest of
generating examples and working from their to abstractions. (It fits very nicely
into my philosophy in which design and implementation are the halves of