- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:16:00 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1612 ------- Additional Comments From jmdyck@ibiblio.org 2005-07-20 21:16 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > > Still from all this discussion, it seems to me that we would > be better off by avoiding the 1 <= i <= n notation entirely. Yup, you're probably right. > I believe that would cover all the cases. Did I miss anything? If we're ignoring the "for all 1 <= j <= m" case of 4.1.5 (which is covered by Bug 1584 and Bug 1693), then no, I don't think you missed anything. But note that I'm not the original poster.
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2005 21:16:03 UTC