From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,eab63eba6def5aa
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ehud Lamm <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: 8 Queens reference
Date: 1999/09/08
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990908075837.44962B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 522419484
References: 
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990907175903.39650A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <7r4ko2$kv3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: The hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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