[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*From*: zans....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:57:04 -0700 (PDT)*Cc*: zans....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx*References*: <a97c6b33-de29-473f-9515-42b70064a28c@googlegroups.com> <44d35dc7-4b80-4bbe-81f9-548b310987d6@googlegroups.com> <c114771f-f15e-4373-9501-f706bf38dbd7@googlegroups.com>

Do you think so? My understanding was that functional languages would be easier to specify than imperative ones as programs written in a functional style are pretty close to how mathematical functions are written. On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 12:11:01 PM UTC+1, fl wrote: > > > sparsed > > According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "to sparse" is no longer used since the 17th century. > (It should.) The adjective "sparse" is a bit too restrictive. So "scattered" seems better. > > -- > FL

**Follow-Ups**:

**References**:

- Prev by Date:
**Re: RECURSIVE as a forward declaration** - Next by Date:
**Re: What do you think about the use of category theory for specifications?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: What do you think about the use of category theory for specifications?** - Next by thread:
**Re: What do you think about the use of category theory for specifications?** - Index(es):