On Sat, May 9, 2009 3:12 pm, Christoph LANGE wrote: > On Saturday 09 May 2009 15:31:46 Professor James Davenport wrote: >> What I meant is that you say "assuming the existence of such a function >> x(i) ...". I've always assumed we meant list_selector from list2, but we >> haven't made that as clear as we should. >> >> Incidentally, I've noticed a missing FMP there: will fix. > > I see! Well, I hadn't even been aware of the list2#list_selector symbol > when > writing my previous mails. I had mentioned list3#entry, though, which > seems > redundant with the former. (So shouldn't we actually deprecate one of > them > and declare it equivalent with the other one? -- Do you want me to file a > ticket on that?) Unfortunately, ist3#entry (which I wasn't aware of - so we're quits) does the "counting backwards for negative arguments" trick, which I personally hate (it complicates the implementation, and allows bugs to drift on for the unwary - if I WANT to count backwards I know it). Please do raise a ticket, though, as I'd like to know what others think.
James Davenport Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo Otherwise: Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology and Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor and Programme Chair, OpenMath 2009 IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
