W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: ACTION-761 - Lists in Core done

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:55:21 +0200
Message-ID: <49FFF0E9.7060803@inf.unibz.it>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Adrian Paschke <paschke@inf.fu-berlin.de>, 'RIF WG' <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
An argument for having only ground lists is that implementations can
view them as being atomic, and can leave their manipulation up the
built-ins.  So, implementations do not need to have the machinery to
deal with constructed terms and can restrict themselves to variables and
constants.

Jos

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Any thoughts on the question in [1]?
> 
> I don't see why we are restricting to ground lists rather than using the
> safety definition to limit use of the list operator.
> 
> If we do retain ground lists then we could at least have a fn:list
> builtin which can be used to construct lists from elements, without
> having to use the ugly nested fn:insert-before(0,..) construction.
> 
> Dave
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/0007.html
> 
> Adrian Paschke wrote:
>> I have added the restriction on ground list in Core.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Syntactically Harold and I updated the EBNF to ground lists (without
>> variables). The semantics follows from this syntactic restriction. To
>> make it explicit I have added a statement about ground list terms
>> which are safe to the safeness definition.
>>
>>  
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
> 
> 

-- 
+43 1 58801 18470        debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Many would be cowards if they had courage
enough.
  - Thomas Fuller


Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 07:56:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT