- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:43:29 GMT
- To: strotman@cs.fsu.edu
- CC: www-math@w3.org
> I noticed that you took up my suggestion andnow allow the qualifiers to > appear with any "head" operator. Good! yes, sounds like we didn't explicitly reply to you saying we'd do that, sorry. > (sorry for using OpenMath terminology here) I can probably cope:-) > - bvar introduces a bound variable this is certainly the intent. Where "bound variable" has to be interpreted with some care x is expressed using a bvar in \int x dx even though x is free there. This could be rationalised by saying that \int x dx is syntactic shorthand for ( \int (\lambda x. x) dx) (x) (which is how it would be encoded in OpenMath) and the inner use of x is bound. > - that variable's scope is the surrounding apply This is also the intent. - except for <interval> qualifiers as immediate children of the surrounding apply 4.2.3.2 (Operators taking qualifiers) says: > Qualifiers always follow the operator and precede the argument if it is > present. If more than one qualifier is present, they appear in the order > bvar, lowlimit, uplimit, interval, condition, domainofapplication, > degree, momentabout, logbase. A typical example is: which does constrain qualifiers to being immediate children of the apply doesn't it? The description of bvar in 4.4.5.6 does say > Discussion > The bvar element is the container element for the `bound variable' of an > operation so I think it is clear that use of bvar with other newly introduced constructs should not change that. It does go on to say > The meaning of the bvar element depends on the context it is being used > in. For further details about how qualifiers are used in conjunction > with operators taking qualifiers, consult Section 4.2.3.2 [Operators > taking Qualifiers]. I'm not sure if that can really be made any more constrained given existing differences in the use of bvar between the various elements. Do you have any explicit example in mind that you think would be a) bad and b) allowed by the current spec. (It's getting too close to Christmas to consider problems in the abstract, need concrete examples:-) David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 12:43:37 UTC