As you will have gathered from my previous posting to "categories", over the past three years I have been applying Abstract Stone Duality to the foundations of (constructive) analysis. This means that I have been bringing not only ASD itself but categorical ideas more generally to a new audience. However, my new friends are not very familiar with some of the ideas that I normally take for granted. Two things in particular have turned out to be difficult. One of these, not surprisingly, is my use of LAMBDA CALCULUS to define open subspaces. I have found notational ways to sugar this pill, such as defining functions WITH arguments (as in most programming languages), so avoiding lambda-abstraction unless absolutely necessary, and simply writing "..." instead of the usual name "Gamma" for a context or list of parameters. I see this as part of the programme of relating formal logical notation to the idioms of vernacular of mainstream mathematics, as in Charles Wells' "Handbook of Mathematical Discourse", and sections 1.6 and 6.5 of my own book, "Practical Foundations of Mathematics", where I explain the phrase "there exists" and the usual manipulation of finite sets. However, there is another problem that is not simply a matter of unfamiliar notation. I had understood that the theory of CONTINUOUS LATTICES had grown out of half a dozen different disciplines (represented by the authors of the "Compendium"), and in particular that on of these had been the concept of SEMI-CONTINUITY in real analysis. I had expected to find at least a basic awareness of continuous lattices amongst analysts, but I was mistaken. However, it would not be appropriate to include an introduction to them in ASD, since it does not build directly on the standard theory of continuous lattices. Instead, it abstracts ideas from them (in particular the paper "Computably based locally compact spaces" has an abstract "way below" relation), and one of its basic principles is to hide Scott continuity in the foundations. I would like to be able to cite an introduction to continuous lattices that is written for (and ideally by) real analysts. So far, my enquiries amongst the experts on continuous lattices have drawn a blank, but maybe some analyst has had occasion to use them, or maybe teach a graduate course about them. To generalise the question, is there a good account of non-Hausdorff topology apart from those written for domain theory in theoretical computer science? My specific context is to rewrite Section 7 of "A lambda calculus for real analysis", which was presented at "Computability and Complexity in Analysis" in Kyoto in August 2005. Paul Taylor www.PaulTaylor.EU