🚀 go-pugleaf

Barry:

This really concerns me.  We are charged with producing a semanticly correct
language standard and you say "It makes no sense for us to spend time
formally defining the variant of VDM that we are using ...".  If the people
who are developing and approving the standard do not (cannot) understand
the language that it is being defined in, then we are totally wasting our
time.  When VDM DOES stabilize and THERE IS a standard reference, THEN it
is time to use it to formally define the language.  Unless convinced
otherwise, I am leaning toward voting against the standard with the VDM
left in unless a "reasonable" description of EXACTLY the variant of VDM
used is included in the standard.

Why do I feel that I am acting out a scene of Alice in Wonderland?

Cheers,

Tom.