[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [mizar] PVS GPLed
Josef:
>Even for a (unlabeled) _tree_ there is e.g. the problem
>of hidden arguments (a redefined functor may take some more
>arguments on the semantic level, so there will be additional
>edges in the tree). Or expandable vs. normal types -
>again change already the _tree_ on the semantic level.
Okay, okay, enough already! I give in!
>And there might be some weird cases even without this,
>e.g. when constructors with the same name are defined for
>several arities ...
I don't think that _that_ will be a problem. The way I
understand term syntax, this has been taken into account.
Freek