- 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