literal value terminology (was: Re: Review of MT)

>
>>>    Or by "literal value" do you mean the member of the value space
>>>    of some datatype?
>>
>>  Yes, that is what I meant.
>
>Good. I had hoped that was the case. What threw me
>was the adjective 'literal' in front of value. It
>seems to suggest that the values are the strings
>(literals) rather than the members of the value
>space of the datatype.
>
>Perhaps you could just say 'value'? and leave the
>'literal' off?
>
>>>    If the latter, then don't we need some treatment of lexical datatypes,
>>>    value spaces, lexical spaces, and (presumably also) canonically
>>>    lexical spaces in the core MT?
>>
>>  Well, we need it eventually.  But in the meantime, the MT can just
>>  say that literals denote literal values (whatever those turn out to
>>  be).
>
>Fair enough. Though I think it would be clearer, in
>light of the vocabulary of the "foundation" datatyping
>document (sections 1-3 of Sergey's document) to just
>say 'value' rather than 'literal value'.

Hmm. The trouble is that plain "value" could mean anything at all.  I 
want to allow the MT to conceptually distinguish values of literals 
from semantic values in general, ie resources. (They might turn out 
to be the same; but they might not also and I'd like to stay 
agnostic.)

How about calling them "datatype values" ? That avoids the use of 
"literal" as an adjective and also makes an obvious connection with 
datatyping. It also follows the DAML usage, which distinguishes 
'object' classes from 'datatype' classes, which are classes of 
datatype values.

Anyone got strong views on this? Speak now! Unless there are strong 
objections I will make this change.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 19:09:49 UTC