Re: examples in NF&R

2009/4/29 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> A quick look at NF&R indicates that the example still need to be fixed
> up.
>
> 1/ As agreed on earlier, the examples should use the same syntax
> � switching mechanism as the other documents. �The Primer people are
> � currently working on making this work really well, so they should be
> � consulted.

1) As said in my email, I used the same switching mechanism as the
SS&FS (but at the moment made it only on F1 to F4).
Does you mean that the syntax mechanism in the SS&FS is not fine ?
Why ?

2) We cannot use the same mechanism as the Primer (simple switch
buttons), because the optional syntaxes are within the Examples which
are themselves optional. This is the same case for SS&FS. It's why I
used the same mechanism as SS&FS.


> 2/ The examples are all syntactically incorrect as they use
> � "unqualified" names in the Functional Syntax, which are no longer
> � permitted. �The easiest fix would be to use the empty prefix, which
> � just involves putting a colon at the beginning of each name in the
> � examples.

I precisely asked you twice, and was waiting for the answer to know
whether I have to put  a colon.
Thanks for the clarification, will add.

> peter
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 18:52:09 UTC