On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:54:30PM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 1/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >+ Set Subset subset .any === X.all
: >+ Set Superset superset .any === X.all
:
: I think these should be reversed. Since function application is
: commonly read "of", this:
:
: Set(2,3) ~~ Subset(1,2,3)
:
: is likely to be read as "The set of (2,3) is a subset of (1,2,3)".
: Similarly:
:
: given $set {
: when Subset(1,2,3) {...}
: }
:
: is likely to be read "when it's a subset of (1,2,3)".
Okay, that's two strikes against the type fakery approach, since
we also have confusion with the "subset" declarator. I think maybe
we should go with .contains and .containedby or some other possibly
shorter synonym. Or maybe .contains and .exists need to be unified,
though the fact that I can't think of the other direction just
points out the fact that .exists has a poor valence linguistically
for expression subsetness. Maybe we should change .exists to .contains.
Hmm...
Larry
