Re: [PRD] review of the frozen draft of Nov 25

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> I do not object if you make it crispier. Also, my original comment was that we
> need to actually make this common subset more explicit (no negation, assertions
> only).

Ok. Done.
 
 
> Well, we can use something else instead of uninterpreted function symbols.  The
> problem is that while my formulation might only raise questions, your use of
> "logical functions" is terminologically incorrect. These symbols are called
> "non-logical (function) symbols" in logic!
> 
> Instead of "uninterpreted ..." we could say simply "function symbols".
> This is not quite crisp, since builtin functions are also symbols, but people
> should understand.

Ok. I used "uninterpreted function symbols".

I think that only your comments 10, 12 and 13 remain unanswered now. They should be by tomorrow night, and you will be able to try and read the doc again :-)

Thanx again for the thorough commenting.

Cheers,

Christian