Re: [CoFI] CASL Concrete Syntax

[Christine.Choppy@irin.univ-nantes.fr (Christine Choppy)]

About Till's mail of Monday 9 Feb:

>page 7, conjunction and disjunction:
>Isn't it common to give conjunction a higher precedence than disjunction?

and 

>page 7, implication:
>It is quite standard that implication associates to the right,
>i.e. A => B => C is parsed as A => (B => C)
>(see eg. Shoenfield, Mathematical logic, 1967).

I asked again a colleague in Paris who is a logician and has been
teaching logics for years: she says that on these grounds there is
no standard and that it varies with the authors...
Therefore, if we were to make some choice, I don't think it could
be on the grounds that it is standard anywhere...
(and Peter was reminding us that :
> some of us have argued that software
> engineers do not have such a strong tradition for this. )

Christine.

[Thanks for confirming this point - which appears to be the only
 controversial one concerning the concrete syntax that was released
 on 17 February.  Unless there are immediate protests, I'll now regard
 the issue of precedence in formulae as settled (no change to the
 concrete syntax document is needed).  --PDM]