Bradd wrote:
>> It should at least specify all important operations on the data types
>> it does describe.

xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> It does.  Important operators are those that are needed to implement
> others.  If it is impossible to implement an operator otherwise, then
> it may justify inclusion.

It's *possible* to implement any operation using just a Turing machine
or pure lambda calculus. Anything more than that is just syntactic
sugar. Of course, syntactic sugar is necessary, so we define
"primitives" at a much higher level than a Turing machine.

You've defined a set of primitives that, according to Bear's experience
and mine, leaves some holes, especially performance holes. You may not
consider it important to include a primitive "find-and-delete-subsequence"
operation, but it's critical for some applications.

Worse, you don't even seem to find it important to listen to criticisms
of this nature. When I try, you accuse me of making dire warnings
without evidence. Just because you aren't listening to the evidence
doesn't mean that I haven't given it.

Maybe you're just frustrated by all the complaints so late in the draft
period, but you're only frustrating us too, by constantly insisting that
our issues are unimportant or by claiming that we don't provide enough
support for our complaints.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd