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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-21 03:21:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:27:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1024654915 10507312 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26542 Date: 2002-06-21T12:27:35+02:00 List-Id: On 20 Jun 2002 11:20:44 -0700, 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote: >Dmitry A.Kazakov wrote in message news:... >> Russ wrote: > >> The point is that though a set-theoretic equality might be defined, for >> some types it might appear unusable for them, like for floating-points or >> fuzzy sets. For other things it cannot be defined at all, yet alternative >> equality definitions might have sense for them. So there are situations >> when reasonable defined assignment and equality are not conformant with >> your proposition. > >Again, I contend that if my rule (requiring consistency of assignment >and equality testing) does not apply, then those operators are >inappropriate anyway. You shouldn't use "==" (or whatever your symbol >is) for comparing two "fuzzy" sets unless you are testing for exact >equality. Is you are merely testing for similarity, than you should >write a function called "areSimilar" or some such thing. Otherwise, >YOU are the one abusing mathematical notation. For a fuzzy inference engine equality defined as a function having fuzzy boolean result is perfectly reasonable in both mathematical and practical sense. It is not an abuse. >So were back to the original point. Assignment and equality testing >are very tightly related, and using "=" for assignment is perfectly >reasonable. I can only repeat that 'to be related' is not 'to be same'. Your idea (when applied consequently) is to replace statements with their postconditions, i.e. instead of saying "what to do" one says "what he wants to have". It is nothing new, but it was nothing to do with languages like Ada. --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de