Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Paper draft: "Denotational design with type class morphisms"

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:

Robin Green wrote:

...

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:14 +0100 Achim Schneider wrote:

...

Conal Elliott wrote:

...

DRAFT version ___ comments please

Conal, please, PLEASE, never, EVER again use the word "meaning" if you actually mean "denotation". It confuses the hell out of me, especially the (I guess unintended) connotation that you analyse the meaning of a particular instance's existence on a cosmic scale.

It shouldn't confuse you. Using "means" for "denotes", and likewise "meaning" for "denotation", is correct English, and very common usage too.

(length . denotations) "to mean" > (length . denotations) "to denote"

(read: "to denote" is more defined than "to mean")

Following your argument through, we should talk kinda like "hey, we do something with that thingy to do that-other thingy to that thingy over there". 99% of my former teachers would tear you to shreds... in mid-air (during lift-off).

I can't talk about the whole of English usage, but I never saw "meaning" in a mathematical context where "denotation" would work, too, except in Conal's writings.

...and that doesn't even include that my native language isn't English but German, in which "to mean" nounificates using another object: It translates to "Opinion" instead of "Denotation". "deuten" (to intepret, to point) is a very well-defined concept in German and doesn't like to be messed with.

The distinction is very clear in technical English but often disregarded in ordinary speech. http://consc.net/papers/intension.html is very informative. -gregg, your faithful half-baked philosophaster