- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:42:42 +0000
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote: > I found that the definition is overly restrictive in the face of > disjunction; it required all variables to be safe in every disjunct, > even if the variable does not occur in the head. This is, however, a > situation we do want to allow. > I updated the definition yet again. > > This disjunction in core is giving me a headache. > Would the difficulties of Jos with the definition of safeness be > sufficient grounds for getting rid of disjunction in core? ;-) Works for me :-) Given that disjunction (and several other things like nested functions) are just syntactic sugar. One option might be to define the transformation to a stripped down Core without the sugar and define safeness in terms of that. Dave
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 11:44:04 UTC