Re: A simple notation, again

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:39:25 +0200
Message-ID: <46a3c031$0$320$>

David Cressey schreef:
> ... what I'm coming up with is a
> notation, and not a grammar. Order in a notation does not always imply
> order in the things denoted.

The thing/denotation distinction very important, and a major misunderstanding-generator. So please elaborate clearly on this up front when you document the notation. Received on Sun Jul 22 2007 - 22:39:25 CEST

Original text of this message