regrets telecon on Tuesday

Dear all,

I will not be able to attend Tuesday's telecon.
Regarding the issue of lists: I do not care that much about how they are 
represented, as long as it is possible to write incomplete lists, i.e. 
include a tail (note that the tail is already present in both Harold's 
proposals on [1]).


Regarding the issue of named argument uniterms: I am in favor of not 
including them in the language, because they complicate the language, 
seriously complicate implementation (as discussed on the list), do not 
provide any additional expressive power, and because I find it very 
doubtful that this feature will make life easier for more than a few 
people.  Additionally, people might get confused between frames and 
named argument uni terms [I have already seen this in our working group].
(For those who are still confused: named argument uniterms are merely a 
complicated way of writing terms; they have nothing to do whatsoever 
with frames)

However, if the working group really insists, I will not object to 
including them in BLD.


Best, Jos

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor
-- 
                          debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
One man that has a mind and knows it can
always beat ten men who haven't and don't.
   -- George Bernard Shaw