[OSR] Standard syntax extensions ?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date

by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous  next ] [ Message in thread: previous  next ] [ Thread: previous  next ]
[ Message by date: previous  next ] [ Message in thread: previous  next ] [ Thread: previous  next ]
Date:  20080427 (14:20) 
From:  Christopher L Conway <cconway@c...> 
Subject:  Re: [OSR] Standard syntax extensions ? 
Andrej Bauer <Andrej.Bauer <at> andrej.com> writes: > Arthur Chan wrote: > > That > > said, there are some of us who feel that that the python infix syntax is > > clearer, and as it corresponds more directly to the mathematical > > notation, it is just as provably correct as the List.mem notation is. > > If reusing "in" is a big deal, then maybe we could do "in_list" or > > "inlist"? That'd be more typesafe too. > > Just a small correction, if you will alow me. When we speak of > correctness of a programming language we do not say that "syntax is > provably correct" but rather that the "implementation is correct". I think what Arthur meant by "provably correct" was "has welldefined semantics, aiding proofs of correctness." > Actually, the whole phrase "provably correct" is often misused in > computer science, at least the way I understand it. If you prove > something then it is "proved correct", while a thing is "provably > correct" if we _could_ prove it correct. Perhaps a native speaker of > English can clarify this point. You have a point, from a prescriptive point of view. But in the common usage "provable" and "proved" are sometimes interchanged. Most computer scientists aren't Platonists: "provable" means "I could describe the proof for you, step by step, if you like, but let's save some time by skipping it." Saying a claim is "provable" without working out the proof begs the question. > Isn't everything on this list a minor quibble? Happy quibbling, Chris