- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:04:40 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1612
------- Additional Comments From jmdyck@ibiblio.org 2005-07-20 20:04 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
>
> In a few cases, we use the following notation (1 <= i <= k).
> We have a separate comment from Michael Dyck I believe which
> recommends not to use that notation which is confusing.
Nope, not me. In Bug 1763, I recommended eliminating the uses in 7.2.10, not
because it was confusing, but because it didn't convey the intended semantics.
(And in Bug 1584, I talked about the problems surrounding "for all 1 <= j <= m"
, but that's a different notation with a different intent.)
> A better way to write those cases is as follows:
>
> dynEnv |- Expr1 => false
> dynEnv |- Expr2 => false
> --------------------------------------
> dynEnv |- Expr1 and Expr2 => false
>
> which is what is intended in the rest of the spec.
No, it isn't. Except for the cases noted above, each occurrence of 1 <= i <= k
is just a judgment that must be made to hold like all the other premises; it is
not some kind of annotation saying that other premises should be duplicated in
the way you indicate. Thus, the rule in question can be interpreted:
IF
dynEnv |- Expri => false
AND
1 <= i <= 2
THEN
dynEnv |- Expr1 and Expr2 => false
i.e., if either of the two Exprs yields false, then the and-expr yields false.
This is the intended semantics for i <= i <= k for rules in:
4.1.5 / DErr / rule 1
4.6 / (DEv|DErr)
4.8.2 / DErr
4.11 / (DEv|DErr)
(Note that the accompanying prose tends to use words like "any", "either", or
"some", rather than "all" or "every".)
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2005 20:04:46 UTC