Re: POSSREPs as union types

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>rp_at_raampje.(none) (Reinier Post) wrote:
>
>>Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>I had a though about possreps the other day, and I wanted to post
>>>it, for no particular reason. This thought is not much developed,
>>>so don't expect much. :-)
>>
>>It would help if you stated your ideas in terms that don't require
>>the whole-sale purchase of C. Date's books in order to be appreciated.
>>(This is not intended as a comment on the usefulness of your idea.
>>Just a comment that I don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.)
>
> Well, then you probably ought to read a book or two.

I have. I'm not impressed with their overall quality.

-- 
Reinier