- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:32:09 -0400
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:45:40 +0200 Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote: > Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:39:36 +0200 > > Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote: > > > > > >>Why not use = for frames instead, as in obj[prop = val]? > >> > >>As I suggested on IRC during last week's telecon, that would reflect the > >>semantics that the frame is true iff the value of property 'prop' for object > >>'obj' is equal to 'val'. > > > > > > Such a frame is true NOT if the value is equal to val, but if the value of prop > > CONTAINS val. > > Right. I forgot that. But my point about making it extensible to using other tests than equality remains. We can allow extensions that use whatever u want in between name and value. This has nothing to do with whether we use -> or hasValue, or whatever. B.t.w., the -> is not new and is well established. In this kind of languages it goes back almost 25 years to Hasan's Login, or maybe even earlier. I always thought that the use of -> comes from C and C++, where -> is used to refer to values of properties. And it is also used in SQL in some cases. So, Chris' claim that -> always evokes implication is highly subjective. It depends who you ask. michael
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 17:33:20 UTC