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:
http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20080324.160640.f8aed314.en.html
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.
<excuse_for_maybe_flawed_review> Since that would take *way* too long, I'll just jump to that conclusion (and possibly several others) in my review </excuse_for_maybe_flawed_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 not. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com