[om] Re: OpenMath 2 draft 6c available

Richard Fateman fateman at cs.berkeley.edu
Fri May 21 16:36:58 CEST 2004

If I understand Andreas's correction, it sound like
a repetition of the debate between advocates of the
lisp dialects Scheme  and [every other lisp including
Common Lisp].  Namely does a symbol have a single
binding (Scheme) or does a symbol have separate
function and value bindings.

in Scheme:

(define (foo plus x y)(plus x y))

(foo times x y)   -->  executes  (times x y).

in Common Lisp

(defun foo (plus x y)(plus x y))
(foo times x y) --> executes (plus x y)

;; if you want the effect above, do
(defun foo (a x y)(funcall a x y))   ;; use value binding of "a"

If my understanding is correct, Andreas is arguing for the
Scheme approach.   Perhaps the debate (if there is one)
could reference the similar lisp debate, and save some

Andreas Strotmann wrote:

> Since the corrections that I proposed in November still have not made 
> it into this draft, here is the proposal again, but in a concrete 
> proposal for a slight rewording of the document:

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

More information about the Om mailing list