Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (Assign/Modify)

Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>
>> #6. Section 2.2 (Actions): Assign or not Assign in FPWD? I propose to 
>> keep it, now that it has been re-included with Ed: Adrian wants it, Mark
>> wants it, I am rather in favor, Gary balances. I added an editor's 
>> note in section 2.2.1.3 (Assign) to the effect that this was still 
>> under discussion and that the syntax was liable to evolve.
>>
>> Gary, I see that you changed the examples: I did not check exactly 
>> how, but if we agree on the above solution, you will have to revert 
>> that change, right?
> 
> No, I will not revert the change because the syntax that was there did 
> not work.  Because, as you say, the semantics of assign is exactly the 
> semantics of retract+assert, and we have no better syntax than 
> retract+assert, one wonders why we want an assign action.  If someone 
> has a better syntax than retract+assert, then please propose it.

Because all PR languages have it, in one form or another? Is that a 
good-enough argument for having a modify operation in addition to 
retract and assert?

Btw, the reason why I think that the current Assigne(Frame) syntax does 
not work has nothing to do with its semantics being the same as 
retract+assert: it is rather that I see problems in confusing the source 
and target in one same Frame expression.

Also, Assign, like other forms of "modify", differs from retract+assert, 
in particular when objects are deleted and created. Since, in this WD, 
the semantics of assert and retarct does not deal explicitely with that 
case, the semantics of assign seems to resolve to retract+assert; but if 
its semantics being incomplete is a reason to remove Assign, the same 
should apply to Assert and Retract too!

I modified the editor's note about the semantics of actions to mention 
specifically that it needed be refined wrt the creation and deletion of 
objects. Does that help?

Cheers,

Christian

Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:50:14 UTC