19 Jan
2005
19 Jan
'05
4:30 p.m.
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 21:48, Keean Schupke wrote:
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Neither I nor the authors claim that their proposal is the ultimate "grand scheme", yet. Still I think there are very interesting ideas in there that should be considered for experimental implementation or further research.
But thats interesting isn't it. If one extension can be defined in terms of the other, then only one of the extensions is necessary. There is obviously some connection between functional dependancies and named instances. Maybe there is a better mechanism that both can be defined in terms of?
Any idea? I'll propose you for the next Nobelprize in Programming Language Design ;--) Ben