From: Hans Aberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 15:47:42 CDT
On 22 Oct 2007, at 22:32, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> Read all the stuff. There are different constructions.
> No, I've read the "stuff". You simply forget a formal definition of
No. I left the "semantic length" definition to those that wants to
deal with such. The text implies it may be desirable with such a
semantic length definition, but I do not want myself get into the
>> The main point is that the operations you seek are restrictions of
>> the language set operations.
Then you did not understand it.
> I read your text the way it is : ambiguous.
It is a theory that should be specialized.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 22 2007 - 15:49:16 CDT