From: Ehud Lamm <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: 8 Queens reference
Date: 1999/09/08
Date: 1999-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990908075837.44962B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7r4ko2$kv3$1@nnrp1.deja.com
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Robert Dewar wrote:
|That's not quite right. The terms top-down development and
|stepwise refinement are both current, stepwise refinement
|is a particular approach that is in the general top down
|category, i.e. a stepwise refinement approach is an example
|of top down approaches, but not all top down approaches would
|be considered to be stepwise refinement.
|
After posting I asked myself, any chance Robert Dewar will miss the chance
to correct these terms?
I guess you are as attentive as ever.
For the pueposes I use the paper, it can be used to show the top-down way
of thinking. But fo course in general your objection is valid.
Ehud Lamm mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ehudlamm <== My home on the web
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-09-08 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-09-07 0:00 8 Queens reference Ehud Lamm
1999-09-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-09-08 0:00 ` Ehud Lamm [this message]
1999-09-10 0:00 ` John Duncan
1999-09-08 0:00 ` Geoff Bull
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox