> Then this could be something like > @(M,R,a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n) = @(and,@(R,a_0,a_1),@(M,R,a_1,\ldots,a_n))
with one syntactic variation, if I read this right it's the same as the predicate_on_list symbol proposed to be added as part of the support for MathML3, (obviously the idea is in the air...) see http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/draft-spec/chapter4.html#contm.rewrite.reln and http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/cdfiles2 I think that essentially the only difference is that rather than being cast as an n-ary operator redicate_on_list cast as a binary one taking an explict list as second argument, so in the above notation the usage is @(M,R,@(list,a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n)) Having the explict list constructor there makes it slightly more verbose but avoids the problem Michael alluded to that it's hard to to decompose an n-ary constructor to talk about the individual arguments but a list arguent can be deconstructed with symbols from the list Cd to refer to (say) the kth item, even if the items are not listed explitly. 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. ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
