Re: [BLD] Frame without slot/value pair?

Christian,

It can go either way. We chose a more uniform syntax where t() and t[] are
allowed. Formulas like t[] are also useful. If they are allowed, their
semantics is that the object t exists (without testing any of its
properties). Incidentally, I forgot to include them in the semantics.


	--michael  

> Michael, Harold,
> 
> I just noticed a minor detail in the definition of the Frame construct. 
> The presentation syntax says that a Frame is a TERM or CLASSIFICATION 
> followed by zero or more slot-value pairs (* stands for 0..*, right?):
> 
> Frame ::= (TERM | CLASSIFICATION) '[' (TERM ' -> ' (TERM | Frame))* ']'
> 
> I suppose that this is a typo and that it should be:
> 
> Frame ::= (TERM | CLASSIFICATION) '[' (TERM ' -> ' (TERM | Frame))+ ']'
> 
> that is, a TERM or CLASSIFICATION followed by one or more slot-value pairs?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
>