I am not sure I understand what you are asking...
On Mar 26, 3:01 am, problems@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I think I read sometime ago that [perhaps unix/C] designed a set/s of
> library/s, intended to be a minimal but sufficient set to do 'any' task
?
> But that it is not widely accepted.
Are you thinking of something specific? Both the C standard runtime
library and the Java runtime / component library (among many, many
others -- just using those two as an example, since you mentioned them
both) could be described as sufficient to do 'any' task.
> I imagine programming then being mostly a matter of
> selecting procedures/function out of the library ?
>
> So you've moved the problem to navigating the library ?
Well, I mean, "navigating" the C and Java runtime libraries would
consist of "reading the do***entation"... unless you mean something
else?
> Which would be heirarchically arranged ?
> eg. > strings > insert > args-description .... ?
The Java API do***entation is fairly well organized...
> Perhaps java-programmers do this by 'browsing' the methods of cl***** ?
I think they do this by reading the do***entation. If you mean
browsing methods of cl***** programmatically, this is part of a
feature called "reflection" -- some languages have this feature (such
as Java), others do not... but I don't see how reflection helps you
out here (what are you trying to do?).
> Does it work ?
Depends on how good they are at reading. :-)
> This query is prompted by an attempt to read some forth code;
> where a dictionary of fields:
> <forthWord> : <text explanation>
> would be usefull.
You mean, if the Forth programmer had do***ented the words they
defined?
> But then why not just structure the dictionary as a heirarchy, where
> you can browse the <text explanation> to get the <forthWord> ?
A hierarchy? This is more a simple table... where you can browse the
text explanations. There is no hierarchy, unless I'm misunderstanding
you. You could accomplish this, for example, by simply entering the
forth words and their text descriptions in, say, an Excel spreadsheet,
and visually browsing through it or using the find feature to search
for specific text. What are you asking?
> Such visual tools WORK for me, eg. mc, but many prefer to
> 'remember instead of just recognize' . I think it gives them a
> childish feeling of power: the motive to resist deskilling.
What does this mean? That you want to remember what your Forth words
do without having to consult the do***entation every time you
encounter a word? That will happen once you consult your dictionary
enough times.
How does that all that fit in with the string processing you had
mentioned? Are you trying to generate do***entation from Forth code?
Are you trying to parse some sort of word dictionary and present the
information in a way that isn't just a table of words and
definitions?
> Ideas ?
It seems I may be misunderstanding what you are asking... but it is
pretty late at night. Can you be more specific?
Jason
|
