Re: POSSREPs as union types

From: none <rp_at_raampje.>
Date: 06 Sep 2009 13:42:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4aa3bc4b$0$18020$>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> What? So bad that you could not even pick up a few definitions?

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.

Received on Sun Sep 06 2009 - 15:42:35 CEST

Original text of this message