- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:21:42 +0200
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote:
>
>>- In 2.1.3, the remark that f() and f can be interpreted differently and
>>dialect may introduce axioms to make them equal should be clearly marked
>>as irrelevant to BLD (where symbol f has either signature f0 or i, but
>>not both).
>
> why is it irrelevant?
I understood that, in BLD, the same symbol f can have either signature
i{} or f0{()->i}, but not both. And thus, in BLD, whether f = f() or not
is irrelevant.
My point was only about separating more slearly what is BLD and what is
the more general framework in which BLD is defined.
> The problem is that if we do not use signatures then we have to split the
> set of symbols into subsets.
You mean, subsets like "function" (or even "x-ary function"), predicate,
etc? If yes, ok, I get your point.
Christian
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 12:28:23 UTC