Re: [LogoForum] Logo: Tests for compliance.

The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum.  Please 
reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the 
LogoForum.  The original author of this message is 
teo64x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 totally agree with this idea. 

I think we could start a productive discussion in
order to:
(a) define what is Logo (a basic Logo Standard) and
(b) suggest ideas that could make code ****table and as
usable as possible between different Logo dialects (an
extended, but non-pledging Logo Standard).

-----------------------------

In article <john.stclair-F7307C.19161404022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 clemrutter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum.  Please 
> reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the 
> LogoForum.  The original author of this message is 
> clemrutter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> I am still being asked the question: Is this a LOGO, or is this not a
> LOGO? This is usually followed by the question If this is not a LOGO,
> what do I need to do to make it LOGO? So can we as a group get
> together to make up a definitive definition, and put together may be 5
> one line tests that can be used to illustrate this? 
> 
> 1a. Basic syntax
> 
> A test maybe: make "n 100 if 110 = sum first bf [ 7 10 23] :n [pr
> [VALID]]
> 
> 1b. Basic graphics
> A test may be: etc
> 
> 2. Base system- both 1a and 1b validate 
> 
> 3. Base system with trig functions 
> 
> 4. UCB compliant
> 
> 5. UCB compliant with extensions as listed.
> 
> These are purely illustrative to start the conversation. But I
> envisage we developers could aim for the tests. We could then describe
> a logo as say 'Level 2 but missing the fill facility '.
> 
> There are lots of issues- but could we have a go!
> 
> __._,_.___
> LogoForum messages are archived at: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum