Return-Path: <kfoury@cs.bu.edu> X-Spam-HitLevel: X-Spam-DCC: INFN-TO: cs3.bu.edu 1233; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on cs3.bu.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Pyzor: Received: from [24.34.22.188] (c-24-34-22-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.34.22.188]) (authenticated bits=0) by cs3.bu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kAE2lmIP015390; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:48:18 -0500 Message-ID: <45592E58.1020401@cs.bu.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:47:52 -0500 From: Assaf Kfoury <kfoury@cs.bu.edu> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: samepst@cs.bu.edu CC: cs520@cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Problem Set 7, Problem 3 References: <23866.71.192.166.44.1163469654.squirrel@cs-squirrelmail.bu.edu> In-Reply-To: <23866.71.192.166.44.1163469654.squirrel@cs-squirrelmail.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Clamav-Status: No Status: RO Content-Length: 714 X-UID: 51 X-Keywords:
Problem 3 in Problem Set 7 is a little open-ended. There are different
choices for Texn in [Pierce, Sect 14.3]. You can first consider what
appears (to you) to be the easiest choice, and see how far you can carry
out a comparison with the treatment of exceptions in Handout 16. If you
can handle this first choice for Texn, you can go on to consider some of
the other choices in [Pierce, Sect 14.3].
Assaf
samepst@cs.bu.edu wrote:
>For problem set 7, problem 3, there is a reference to the language
>described in Pierce in section 14.3. There is an open type Texn, which
>Pierce left open to different implementations. Are we constrained for our
>choice of type for Texn?
>
>Thank You,
>-Sam Epstein
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 14 2006 - 16:31:59 EST