Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
From: peteric@creda.isltd.insignia.com (Peter Ivimey-Cook)
Subject: Re: OCCAM3 (was :- Revision of occam 2 Reference Manual)
Organization: Insignia Solutions Ltd
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 15:06:47 GMT
Message-ID: <CuMvBD.JqJ@isltd.insignia.com>

Geraint Jones (Geraint.Jones@wolfson.oxford.ac.uk) wrote:

: You're hard put to it to write a non-deterministic VALOF with PAR but no ALT.
: I argued for allowing PAR in VALOFs when the (first) occam2 manual was being
: sorted out, but I was sat on by {someone} from Inmos and told not to be so
: silly.

Nice to see someone agrees with me :-)

Just a thought - is there any mileage in a compiler switch which kills off
*any* construct which is not directly CSP derived, for those people who
wish to have a (pure) mathematical basis for their language, and let the rest
of us use Occam as a practical tool?  This bearing in mind that most of the
maths tools required are too limited to cope with real-world problems and
development methods, at least at the moment.

Regards,

Peter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Ivimey-Cook                       Mail Id: peteric@isltd.insignia.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Std.Disclaimer:                          My own opinions, not my employers.


