From: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:31:16 +0100, Ernst Murnleitner wrote:   
      
   >> Technically, to have accumulation method specified per rules block is more   
   >> general.   
   >>   
   >> BUT the only feasible accumulation method is OR, so accumulation   
   >> specifications are superfluous anyway. In my compiler all accumulation   
   >> methods except OR are flagged as errors.   
   >   
   > But for OR you have also more possibilities. I think you mean that for   
   > accumulation the same method as defined for OR should be used.   
      
   Yes. But I meant it in more strict sense, as OR=max. For all other methods   
   an independency analysis of involved variables is required. Because that   
   would never happen*, any inference made would be just rubbish. So why   
   should somebody care?   
      
   >> The variable should be of Boolean type (the draft is quite shallow in all   
   >> concerning types.) So if X is Boolean,   
   >   
   > OK, the same as 1.0 membership for true and 0.0 for false.   
      
   Yes. This is an intuitionistic logical value: X:Boolean->[0,1]   
      
   >>    IF X is (true,1)(false,0) AND (true,1)(false,0) is X THEN ...   
   >   
   > Is it allowed in FCL to define the sets direct in the condition of the rule?   
      
   Not in the draft.   
      
   But why shouldn't it be? Clearly, good language design should allow an   
   expression everywhere a constant is expected. The set aggregate   
   (false,0)(true.1) is a constant expression, so why not?   
      
   -----------   
   * Otherwise the language should require analytical description of joint   
   distributions of variables.   
      
   --   
   Regards,   
   Dmitry A. Kazakov   
   http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)