Talk:Al Dente

Examples are given on a separate page; why not add them to the main text?


 * Well, the examples are pretty verbose, and I'm intending to (eventually) add even more. —Tanner Swett (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not have all the traditional logical relations including not? you already have and, or, and implication. A requires B; B requires A can be be more succinctly written as a=b. Also B excludes C is equivalent to C excludes B so why not choose a more symmetric form like exclude (B and C). Doesthiswork (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, you don't need a separate "requires" and "excludes". B excludes C is equivalent "not (B and C)". Doesthiswork (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Currently, it is always permissible for an object to be in a state where no events have fired; adding "not" would break that. I'm not sure what the consequences of adding an "implies" connective would be. There's already syntax which abbreviates "a requires b; b requires a", namely "a matches b". "exclude (b and c)" would work perfectly fine, but "b excludes c" is shorter. "exclude (a or b)" would be shorter than "a excludes a; b excludes b", however. —Tanner Swett (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * b excludes c allows c&not b, but exclude(b or c) does not. (oh wait...ignore this)50.161.94.113 00:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the meaning of "x excludes y" in this programming language is annoingly different from its English meaning. 99.250.186.201 17:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * x or x; x excludes y; forces y to be false, so it's possible to make a not. (But of course, x must be true, so..) 50.161.94.113 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)