new years resolutions
peter at engcorp.com
Sat Jan 4 17:09:49 CET 2003
Pieter Nagel wrote:
> Peter Hansen wrote:
> > Mike Meyer wrote:
> >>Personally, I think that insisting that programming languages be
> >>turing complete is a better definition
> > That's another definition and, as it's clearly more constraining,
> > possibly a more useful one. It's not widely used, however,
> Ahem. Which circles do *you* hang out in? :-)
> Turing Completeness has been the one and only rigorous mathematicall
> definition of "programming language" for *decades*, now.
Please provide a link to an online reference which I can read to
learn more about this _standard and universal_ definition of the term.
More information about the Python-list