[om] DefMP elements

[Professor James Davenport]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Richard Fateman wrote:
> Why not just say to people defining FMPs that some brain-dead OM
> applications may be unhappy if FMPs are recursive, and so people
> should consider non-recursive ones to be preferred.  I forget
> what FMP stands for, so I may be using the term incorrectly.
> 
> Forbidding recursion seems like a bad idea, and people will
> view it, perhaps correctly, as showing that OM is strictly
> less capable than the systems it is supposed to define.
A "Definition" is meant to be precisely that. I am realising that I should 
have called the other kind "recursive" rather than "evaluating": afet all 
ML distinguishes between let and letrec.
James
--
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