[Haskell-cafe] Re: Paper draft: "Denotational design with type
dev at mobileink.com
Fri Feb 20 12:58:45 EST 2009
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Achim Schneider <barsoap at web.de> wrote:
> Robin Green <greenrd at greenrd.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:14 +0100
> > Achim Schneider <barsoap at web.de> wrote:
> > > Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > DRAFT version ___ comments please
> > > >
> > > Conal, please, PLEASE, never, EVER again use the word "meaning" if
> > > you actually mean "denotation". It confuses the hell out of me,
> > > especially the (I guess unintended) connotation that you analyse
> > > the meaning of a particular instance's existence on a cosmic scale.
> > It shouldn't confuse you. Using "means" for "denotes", and likewise
> > "meaning" for "denotation", is correct English, and very common usage
> > too.
> (length . denotations) "to mean" > (length . denotations) "to denote"
> (read: "to denote" is more defined than "to mean")
> Following your argument through, we should talk kinda like "hey, we do
> something with that thingy to do that-other thingy to that thingy
> over there". 99% of my former teachers would tear you to shreds... in
> mid-air (during lift-off).
> I can't talk about the whole of English usage, but I never saw
> "meaning" in a mathematical context where "denotation" would work, too,
> except in Conal's writings.
> ...and that doesn't even include that my native language isn't English
> but German, in which "to mean" nounificates using another object:
> It translates to "Opinion" instead of "Denotation".
> "deuten" (to intepret, to point) is a very well-defined concept in
> German and doesn't like to be messed with.
The distinction is very clear in technical English but often disregarded in
ordinary speech. http://consc.net/papers/intension.html is very
-gregg, your faithful half-baked philosophaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe