Talk:Reflective programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:26, 26 March 2006

Revision as of 15:42, 26 March 2006

Line 54:

:I will be trying to do so. --[[User:Soumyasch|Soumyasch]] 10:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Title is incorrect ==

Per Wikipedia's manual of style for capitalization, this should be at [[computational reflection]] if anything. Making this correction would require fixing the double redirects. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik Johansson]] 12:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Line 64:

You can also refer to these [http://www.di.uniovi.es/reflection/lab/publications.html], [http://www2.parc.com/csl/groups/sda/projects/oi/workshop-94/foil/references.html], [http://www.csl.sri.com/users/ruess/papers/TLCA97/index.html], [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=38821], [http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=38821&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=72253506&CFTOKEN=83301279], and all references on these pages.

--[[User:Soumyasch|Soumyasch]] 15:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: I am familiar with the literature. The intent of the adjective is to disambigaute the use of the term, but context already does that. However, putting the adjective up front introduces additional problems. For instance, if you consider the paradigm of parallel usage, like "computational process", the term "computational reflection" connotes an algorithm that carries out reflection. This is a useful concept, one that may even be discussed under this head, but it is not in general the concept that is being discussed here. Again, this sort of thing has come up very often before, and experience shows that putting the disciplinary category in parenthesis works best, especially as one begins to use terms in combination, supply quick wiki links, and so on. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 15:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)