Skip to main content
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
Source Link

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflowquestions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

replaced http://meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

In his answeranswer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

added 48 characters in body; edited body
Source Link
Tsuyoshi Ito
  • 16.6k
  • 1
  • 22
  • 32

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

In his answer, supercooldave mentions “the exact nature of the question,” which I think is the very issue. The problem is: Is the exact nature of these questions “the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages” or just “programming”?

  • If they are about the theory of proof assistants and/or programming languages and using Coq merely for concreteness, they are fine.
  • If they are about programming in Coq, they are off topic. The askers may want to ask them on Stack Overflow, considering there are several questions on Coq on Stack Overflow and they get some answers, although I do not know whether the answers are correct or not.

Honestly speaking, the more I think about it, the more the questions seem like programming questions.

Source Link
Tsuyoshi Ito
  • 16.6k
  • 1
  • 22
  • 32
Loading