Re: POSSREPs as union types
Date: 06 Sep 2009 13:42:35 GMT
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
POSSREP wasn't defined in them. Google Books has fragments of a book by Date that mentions POSSREPs. It says: for a formal treatment, see reference [number]. But the reference list is not included.
That is the problem I was referring to.
Fortunately Paul has explained the term.
-- ReinierReceived on Sun Sep 06 2009 - 15:42:35 CEST