(2012/04/19 23:09), Daniel Bünzli wrote:
Do you have any experience to proof a theorem against event combination term
by using above axiom and event combinators semantics? I'm interested in this
kind of reasoning.
In this post I use the semantics and equational reasoning to understand why
something doesn't happen.
https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/arc/caml-list/2009-12/msg00054.html
(you may have to read the whole thread to fully understand the example).
Thank you for your information. I like this kind of strict reasoning.
I'd like to add some semantics to PEC, too.
Any way, thank you for your educational discussion!
Best Regards,
Ogasawara
--
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
