[om-a] Draft version of OpenMath 1.1 available

[David Carlisle]

> 
> In particular, why not just make repeated variables ``erroneous'' in the
> CLtL sense (undefined, but not an error) instead of this arbitrary rule?

I think mainly as this effectively keeps all existing reasonable OM
objects valid, and with the same interpretation as before. This seems a
good objective for a "point" release. For an OM 2 (or if we'd got it
right in OM 1) then maybe error would be a possibility but I didn't want
to suggest invalidating such objects in OM 1.1.


> what's more, it contradicts the variable-renaming rule in the
> preceding

er that would be bad. I just read the text and don't see a conflict
If you have an expression with repeated variables teh preceding alpha
renaming rule would just give you an expression with a new repeated
variable and then the new paragraph would still apply wouldn't it (it's
maybe too late in teh evening to be thinking about this:-)

> (which incidentally needs to be generalized to the n-variables case, I
> just realized). 

True it probably should be, thanks.

David


_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
--
om-announce at openmath.org  -  public announcements concerning OpenMath
Post discussion to om at openmath.org
Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
Mail om-announce-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems