Re: Zed and the Art of Functional Programming (was: Re: FP in the Larger or Functional Oriented Software Engineering)

> Seriously though, FP and Z seem like a good match from where I sit.
> Wouldn't you vigorously agree?

I would, quite vigorously.

But your original message was somewhat more provocative.  Setting
aside the acutal theory part of your hilarious conspiracy theory, the
condition you claimed to be noticing was the "paucity of FP-oriented
UML/OCL-like notations".  If you admit Z, then you really ought to
admit the many other formal modeling languages that sit atop theorem
provers (unless you want to argue they don't fit your definition of
modeling languages), as well as synthesis languages such as Specware.
They are all very FP-friendly.  They just happen to traffic in text
rather than diagrams, unlike the majority of the UML notations.

Shriram