Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from leopard.cs.byu.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Thu, 26 May 1994 17:01:46 +0100 Received: by leopard.cs.byu.edu (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA24816; Thu, 26 May 1994 08:55:37 -0600 Sender: hol2000-request@lal.cs.byu.edu Errors-To: hol2000-request@lal.cs.byu.edu Precedence: bulk Received: from oberon.inmos.co.uk by leopard.cs.byu.edu with SMTP (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA24812; Thu, 26 May 1994 08:55:34 -0600 Received: from frogland.inmos.co.uk by oberon.inmos.co.uk; Thu, 26 May 1994 15:55:30 +0100 From: David Shepherd Message-Id: <25980.9405261453@frogland.inmos.co.uk> Subject: Re: User interface versus expanding the logic To: reetz@ira.uka.de (reetz) Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 15:53:30 +0100 (BST) Cc: hol2000@leopard.cs.byu.edu In-Reply-To: <"i80fs2.ira.481:26.04.94.10.41.14"@ira.uka.de> from "reetz" at May 26, 94 12:41:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 904 reetz has said: > david shepherd said: > > >Perhaps one of the things that hol2000 should have in mind is that it > >would be the theorem prover core of a system with a (or perhaps a > >variety of) user interface on top. > > I personally do agree to that point of view. I would even like to say it > a little bit provocative: > > do we need hol2000 or do we need a better user interface of an existing hol ? Yes we do need a better hol ... try to do a few beta reductions on lambda abstractions of 30-tuples using the current UNCURRY mechanism and you'll soon wish that you could do this as a single abstraction! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk tel: 0454-616616 x 625 inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq "I am not a nut --- I am a human being."