[om] a couple of questions

[Stephen Braham]

Steve Linton wrote:
> 
> The nicest solution perhaps would be to define a binding constructor for
> defining a finite set of bound variables. Then you could create a scope in
> which a, b, and c where the bound variables of this constructor, and even
> non-CD reading applications would know that only the names of a b and c were
> meaningful, and how far that meaning extended.
> 
>         steve

I'd go even stronger and say this is the ONLY way to do things. For
the semantic meaning to be preserved, there must be a corresponding
Lambda construction to isolate the defining variables.

Just as OMSTR is a cheat, so can using OMV's on their own be a cheat.
Generally, if the OMV isn't going to be referred to in an external
statement, it generally should be bound.

Indeed, I'd say that's why we decided to have bindings explicit in the
language!

				Steve

--
Stephen P. Braham			Director, PolyLAB
warp at polylab.sfu.ca			TIME Centre 
(604) 268-7981				Simon Fraser University 
(fax) 268-7980				Harbour Centre Campus
http://team.polylab.sfu.ca/~warp/	Vancouver, BC, Canada

   PolyLAB: From the Classroom to Space, http://polylab.sfu.ca/

--
om at openmath.org  -  general discussion on OpenMath
Post public announcements to om-announce at openmath.org
Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
Mail om-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems