Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3

From: paul c <toledobythesea@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:40:18 -0800

paul c wrote:
....

As best as I can understand him, McGoveran wants to prohibit certain relvar values. While I don't argue that this will solve the language problem of 'view updating', ...

Oops, meant to type "I don't argue that this WON'T eliminate the language problem ...".
.

References:
- A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
  - From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
  - From: paul c
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
  - From: Brian Selzer
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
  - From: vadimtro
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
  - From: Brian Selzer
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
  - From: Cimode
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
  - From: paul c

Prev by Date: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
Next by Date: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
Previous by thread: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
Next by thread: Re: A different definition of MINUS, Part 3
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread