Am 19.08.2010 um 13:15 schrieb Florian Haftmann: >> One thing I don't get: if HOL.eq is already taken, why not map the equality >> symbol to something else? > > Well, eq seems more natural when looking at the traditional xsymbol > syntax \<noteq> (although the corresponding abbreviation is named > not_equal). When using HOL.equal, there is always an uncertainty > whether its HOL.equal or HOL.equals. The existing HOL.eq_class.eq is so > special that I would not concede it any influence on the naming of a > fundamental HOL constant. > > Of course I am open to other suggestions.
If equality is called "eq", shouldn't implication be called "imp"? This would be consistent with "HOLogic.mk_imp" etc. But then "and" and "or" should perhaps be called "conj" and "disj". Hm... Food for thought. Jasmin _______________________________________________ Isabelle-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
