Re: what most every language is missing :-)

[Trevis Rothwell <address@hidden>]

Maybe if instead of giving a definite "true", it would work like
this:

	schrodinger's-cat =? dead -> "hmmm...  could be..."

and

	schrodinger's-cat =? alive -> "hmmm...  could be..."

Either way, is there a semantic difference between saying "the cat
might be alive" and "the cat might not be alive"?  Certainly the
first one sounds more positive and the second one more negative,
but is there an actual difference?


Noel Welsh wrote:
>
> Well it would certainly make testing easier.  I'd like
> the operator to have a "possible world" semantics,
> such that
> 
>   schrondinger's-cat =? dead -> true
> 
> and
> 
>   schrondinger's-cat =? alive -> true