On Feb 19, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Joseph Bergin wrote: > I've also suggested that the solution be stated strongly in an imperative > form.
Joe, Regarding the "imperative form" part, I just ran across this last week: "Also, the <i>descriptions</i> that comment completed work are better guides for <i>new</i> work than prescriptive instructions. We've found that sequential descriptions, in an order reflecting the emergence of a coherent whole, <i>are more generative than instructions.</i> The reasons for this have to do with our natural ability to make coherent things, but it's enough for now to say that descriptions are simply more evocative and less restrictive than prescriptions." This is describing some work done back in 1997 on writing sequences by Christopher Alexander & Greg Bryant. [quote taken from: http://www.gregbryant.com/grogbrat/aspen97/RANDP2.html for larger context see: http://www.gregbryant.com/grogbrat/aspen97/index.html ] "Imperative" strikes me as generally being prescriptive. Though I just looked ata couple of patterns in APL and they certainly seemed to express the "Therefore" part very prescriptively, e.g. in 221 Natural Doors and Windows: "On no account use standard doors or windows. Make each window a different size, according to its place." So maybe his work after APL caused Alexander to change his mind on this. -- Ron -- p.s. Great to see some actual discussion on this mailing list! _______________________________________________ patterns-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion
