--- El mar, 14/6/11, Sebastian Fischer <mail_at_sebfisch.de> escribió:
> The Curry report does not predate a specific interleaving
> of
> concurrent constraints but only proposes PAKCS's behaviour
> as one
> possible sequential implementation. I also did not find
> any
> termination guarantees so it's hard to call any behaviour a
> bug, I
> think.
Shouldn't (a & b) be semantically equivalent to (b & a)?
Regards,
Antonio Regidor García
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Di Jun 14 2011 - 09:25:00 CEST