- From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:32:53 -0400
- To: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
- CC: www-math@w3.org
Andreas, see below regarding: > > <fn> > > <apply> > > <int/> > > <bvar><ci>x</ci></bvar> > > <lowlimit><cn>0</cn></lowlimit> > > <uplimit><cn>1</cn></uplimit> > > </apply> > > </fn> > > " > > This has been clarified in the remarks by adding an example of how to > accomplish the same thing without the deprecated fn by using a lambda > expression. > ... I don't understand yet whether or not you have addressed the issue > of the bvar in the curried integral example. > In the original specification, this example was chosen and included precisely because it could be used as a curried expression and we actually meant that interpretation. Never mind that to achieve that interpretation we had to use some sort of magic wand to get over the scoping issues with bvar. The simplistic reasoning went something like: "The expression was incomplete and "obviously" the things needed to complete it simply came next once the fn was applied." Your comments in the review made it clear to us that people had very reasonably decided that this was problematic or had even other interpretations (e.g., Maple's). You also proposed salvaging the example by eliminating the bvar, here and re-introducing it in the containing apply. This solved the scoping issue for bvar, but led to a different interpretation of the incomplete integral and possibly other interpretations. This was further complicated by the fact that it is a deprecated feature and so best left alone because it was going away anyway. Why fix a bug in something that is deleted? Instead of simply salvaging the example, changing its interpretation and possibly dropping the whole issue of curried expressions we opted to leave the deprecated example as is and to use is a vehicle to lead into what we meant to say. We have clarified what was originally meant (however ill advised it may have been at the time), and included a new example showing how the intended effect could be achieved without using the deprecated feature. This had the second benefit of stating even more precisely what was originally intended. Does this address the issue or are we still missing something? Stan. > > >
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 13:31:27 UTC