PS: interval - recommended solution

• From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
• Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 10:19:29 +0200
• To: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
• CC: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>, www-math@w3.org
• Message-ID: <3EB8C191.2060503@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

Hello,

I wrote:

>
> This reminds me of a problem that I posted a long, long time ago, 
> about having interval both as a constructor and as a qualifier 
> element. That's a dangerous syntactic ambiguity: is an apply with an 
> integral operator and an interval element a) an operator on functions 
> which returns the integral of an argument function over that interval, 
> or b) the indefinite integral of an interval-valued function? 
>
So much for the problem.  As a solution, I would recommend deprecating 
the use of interval as a qualifier in favor of  a domainofapplication 
qualifier with an interval constructor child. (Ah yes, I really do 
recommend making domainofapplication a qualifier, not a constructor.)

<apply>
  </int>
  <bvar> ... </bvar>
  <domainofapplication> <interval> ... </interval> </domainofapplication>
  <apply>... </apply>
</apply>

 -- Andreas

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 04:19:35 UTC