Re: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp"

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 16:00:32 EDT

Next message: Pim Blokland: "Re: ANNOUNCE: Essentialist Explanations, 9.0th edition"

Previous message: John Hudson: "Re: [off topic] Quest text font now available."
In reply to: Jonathan Coxhead: "RE: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp""
Next in thread: Jungshik Shin: "RE: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compat ibility decomp""
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Jonathan Coxhead scripsit:

> (And, Mr Cowan, how about an attribution there, please?)

Sorry, yes. Done.

-- 
Henry S. Thompson said, / "Syntactic, structural,               John Cowan
Value constraints we / Express on the fly."     jcowan@reutershealth.com
Simon St. Laurent: "Your / Incomprehensible     http://www.reutershealth.com
Abracadabralike / schemas must die!"            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Next message: Pim Blokland: "Re: ANNOUNCE: Essentialist Explanations, 9.0th edition"
Previous message: John Hudson: "Re: [off topic] Quest text font now available."
In reply to: Jonathan Coxhead: "RE: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp""
Next in thread: Jungshik Shin: "RE: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compat ibility decomp""
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 16:52:29 EDT