> What THIS use of interval is doing is > asserting intervalness on a set that, a priori, might not be an interval. > It is possibly also contradictory to the spec [4.4.2.4.1]:
"this use of condition", I think you intended. I agree it's skirting the edge of reasonableness, but I think that edge cases will always take a certain amount of goodwill in interpretation:-) but honestly I don't see much difference between using the contition/set formulation and specifying something that isn't an interval from using (say) the domainofintegration form for a contour integral and specifying some discrete set that doesn't make sense as a contour. The only difference is that in the first case one could try to make it impossible to get into that situation by insisting that you use the lowlimit/uplimit form instead, but since we can't syntactically constrain the second form to be a contour, I don't see a lot of gain in banning the syntax that allows nonsense to be expressed in the 1 dimensional case as well. David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
