Subject: Similarity between ForSpec & E
From: Bernard Deadman (bdeadman@sdvinc.com)
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 17:00:36 PDT
Moshe,
First my apologies for the delay in taking up this subject with you - it
was only the arrival of the minutes for the Paris meeting that jogged my
memory.
I was puzzled when at least three times during the meeting in Paris you
declared it would be far easier to combine ForSpec with E than with the
Linear Fragment of Sugar.
Thinking about this again I fear I have totally misunderstood the semantics
of ForSpec. I confess you claim the ForSpec semantics to be complete but I
would comment that as a novice in the definition of language semantics I
find yours tough to comprehend and am concerned about their value to users.
Notwithstanding that, could you please look at the attached PDF file which
focuses on one of the properties from the Accellera efforts and show me
where I went wrong in my understanding of ForSpec? Can you help me
understand why your language more closely resembles E than Sugar?
Thanks
Bernard
====================================================================
SDV Inc. 9111 Jollyville Rd, Suite 102, Austin, TX 78759 USA
Phone: (512) 231-9806 xt 101 FAX: (512) 231-9807 Mobile: (512)
431-5126
Email: bdeadman@sdvinc.com Website: www.sdvinc.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 17:07:01 PDT