We often use names for the syntactic parts of the OM objects without really defining them. For instance "binder" is not defined anywhere. I propose to define all of these in 2.1.3 where the syntactic shape of complex OM Objects is first introduced. In particular
in (ii) application define "function" and "argument sequence" and maybe "n-th argument" (which is the n+1th child.
in (iii) attribution define "syntactic head" ("head" will be defined with flattening), "key", "attribute value", and "attribute sequence".
in (iv) binding define "binder", "bound variables", and "body".
in (v) error define ????? how do we call S and the A_i?
And once we have defined these, we can clean up the text below and refer to these definitions via the referencing mechanisms posited in #55
We often use names for the syntactic parts of the OM objects without really defining them. For instance "binder" is not defined anywhere. I propose to define all of these in 2.1.3 where the syntactic shape of complex OM Objects is first introduced. In particular