- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:09:24 -0000
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
> The "pairing" model itself should absolutely be defined as part of > the MT. It was only the idioms that would be left out of the MT. But > perhaps the idioms also need to be in the MT, but modularly, as a > layer on top of the pairing model, so we retain the insulation of > the core data typing model from changes/evolution of idioms. A subtly with the P approach is that there isn't just one type, there can be any number of range constraints. These, in the logicians world, create a single intersection type, but for the rest of us they look suspiciously different from one type. Thus P (in some instances) doesn't follow the elegant pair picture. The primer level material on PD needs to suppress that complication. I think viewing the pairing as something that gets discussed in the less formal section, gets implemented in actual code but is extended/side-stepped/ignored in the more formal section will probably be OK. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 11:09:48 UTC