Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.4) outside ac.uk; Tue, 2 Mar 1993 11:49:42 +0000 Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA06233; Tue, 2 Mar 93 03:36:20 -0800 Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Precedence: bulk Received: from ganymede.inmos.co.uk by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA06228; Tue, 2 Mar 93 03:36:08 -0800 Received: from frogland.inmos.co.uk by ganymede.inmos.co.uk; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:35:48 GMT From: David Shepherd Message-Id: <19366.9303021135@frogland.inmos.co.uk> Subject: Re: pair proof To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted (info-hol mailing list) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 11:35:40 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 724 David Shepherd has said: > Below is some stuff which may help. They replace quantified tuples > by iterated quantifications of components of the tuple. I hope the > definitions don't depend on any of my other standard extensions! Following Jim Grundy's message I would advise ignoring my code and using the pair library/contrib package as that sounds more complete and likely to get better support for hol88. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk tel: 0454-616616 x 625 inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television - Husbands and Wives