[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Adrian, I agree fully with your comments.

Adrian wrote:
> Please lets keep our notions simple, clean and precise. And particularly
> not muddy the water about what CSP is. There is too much
> misunderstanding about the nature of CSP around already.  What is going
> on below is adding something on top of the CSP model. Which is fine: as
> long as people don't think that CSP implies any particular accretions.
> After all, even our beloved occam involves far more than just CSP.

I'll try to be more precise with respect to CSP.  I think the concept
of "CSP" exists at different levels:
1. Mathematics.  (Adrain's expertice) I would indeed like to preserve
   the word "CSP" for the mathematics underlying the "CSP" concept.
2. CSP-based programming.  I would suggest to use "Language-Level-CSP",
   i.e., LL-CSP for all these purposes.

Occam is an implementation of LL-CSP, so is JavaPP, and JCSP.  The distinction
between math and language level "CSP" is essential.  It will clarify a lot for
both insiders and outsiders.

I think CSP (the maths) is very well understood.
I think a lot of discussion is about LL-CSP.

What do you (Adrian) and the others think of the way of "separation of