Hi Ole,
you wrote:
>Do you mean the Beta programming language,
Yes.
>or just the beta versions of
>GnuC++? (Didn't think anybody outside of the University of Aarhus, here in
>Denmark, knew about Beta.
:-)
>And before I get your reply, I still think I'm
>right on that one ;-) )
Yikes. I d
Hi Elan, 17-Feb-2000 you wrote:
>Would that mean that GnuC++ would not be able to incorporate rules? Beta
>has had rule constraints for at least two or three years.
Do you mean the Beta programming language, or just the beta versions of
GnuC++? (Didn't think anybody outside of the University of
rules maybe like this (full code below)
; example
gui: make object! [
a: rule-var "a0"
b: rule-var "b0"
c: rule-var "c0"
rule [ a b ] func [][ trace-state "one of [a b] changed" c/set
'c-by-rule-ab ]
rule[ c ] func[][ trace-state "c changed" ]
trace-state: func[i
At 09:11 AM 2/17/00 -0800, you wrote:
>I do notice that they have a patent covering "integrating rules into OO
>languages ... that covers the innovative technology within R++".
>
>I thought rules and constraints were well-known enough that a patent in this
>area would have to be very specific. An
CTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [REBOL] New? programming construct Re:
Hi, just a short note, that's the "constraint" programming approach,
which we use in the OpenAmulet library too. It has been shown that
th
This sounds really cool. I haven't read the article yet, but it sounds a lot
like it can provide some of the capability that Eiffel does. Good news for
the OO community! Thanks for posting the info, Andrew.
Keith
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 4:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [REBOL] New? programming construct
> Those interested in new and unusual programming constructs,
> take a look at R++ from AT&T, where B
