Re: Examples in Docs, was Re: Escape Sequences in Strings

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <dale-2E1DCB.22580421012001@news-server>,
  Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:

> It's interesting to note that English law, and countries that
> have inherited this model, rely on case law to nail down the
> semantics of the laws that are made via examples. Still, I
> suppose we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for a full
> mathematical notation of the next taxation law semantics :-).

Indeed the use of examples (case law) to nail down lack of
clarity in the statutes is a pretty good example of what we
want to avoid when it comes to programming languages. It is
one thing to find out that the law is interpreted differently
in the second and fourth circuits, and quite another to find
that two different compilers for language XXX do different
things based on different local interpretations and examples!

Actually there *has* been one attempt to formalize a law. As an
excercise in the use of Prolog, the revised citizenship law in
England which embodied changes pushed by the Thatcher
government (*) was complex and was encoded as a set of Prolog
rules implementing the predicate Is_Citizen and related
predicates from the law. This excercise actually caught some
internal inconsistencies which were revised before the law
became final.

(*) Non-technical note: These changes included the rather
amazing change that for the first time in recent times makes
a difference between men and women when it comes to passing
on citizenship. English men pass citizenship to their children,
English women do not always do so if they are married to
aliens.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/