Andrew Walenstein wrote:
> So far as I know, there are no authoritative definitions of
> what are meant by programming plans, but might I suggest tha
> we resolve to not be content with overloading the term "plan"
> any more than necessary?
Unnecessary overloading is bad. So I suggest that we use
"programming plan" in a way that is consistent with the large
existing literature, and use a different term when talking about
other things.
It may be the case that there are no "authoritative definitions"
of what are meant by programming plans, but how many research
publications would it take to count as authoritative?
A little digging in my filing cabinet has found the following
typical example (from Green & Navarro 1995):
" ... mental models of particular programs [described as]
compositions of 'plans' or 'schemas' such as a Running Total plan
[... code example ...].
"This tradition goes back to Soloway and Ehrlich (1984).
"Early versions of the theory of programming 'plans' or
'schemas' had little to say about cognitive architecture
(Soloway and Ehrlich 1984, Detienne 1988). Rist (1994) has
greatly extended the theory and developed it into a working AI
program ...
I guess there must be 20 or more publications describing
programming plans, including several chapters in the book
"Psychology of Programming". So isn't it a little misleading just
to say "there are no authoritative definitions"?
Alan
--
Alan Blackwell Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/afb21/ Phone: +44 (0) 1223 334418
- Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss
To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce
To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help
This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
