Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1

> 
> From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
> Subject: Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1 
> Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 04:00:10 -0400
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Even though this might seem unnecessary in
> > > > the unitary world, this same rule set will have to live in a Phase 2
> > > > world with other semantics, so it must be prepared to declare its
> > > > characteristics in that larger context.
> > > 
> > > Well, this assumes, for starters, that there will be other, divergent,
> > > semantics in Phase 2.  I do not conceed this point.  However, even if this
> > > were the case, how do divergent semantics in Phase 2 require divergent
> > > semantics in Phase 1?
> > 
> > I didn't say that Phase 1 will necessarily have multiple semantics.
> > I said that Phase 1 must already have a plan for Phase 2.
> 
> I don't see how this follows.  Yes, Phase 1 should be performed in a way
> that should not make Phase 2 too much harder, but this is certainly much
> less than a full plan for Phase 2.

I didn't say "full" Ph 2 plan is required. But a very substantial plan --
yes, I believe.


	--michael