"Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com> wrote on 18/11/2009 21:08:22: > > ?So, PRD provides a syntactic way to differentiate between the > "loop" and "no-loop" cases, as exemplified by the modify_loop [1] > and modify_no-loop [2] test cases: they represent the same rule, > where the intended behaviour is to loop [1] or to refract [1]. ? Ooops! Please, read: "... where the intended behaviour is to loop [1] or to refract [2]", of course. > If this is the case then I agree RIF covers both semantics! > > Thanks for the explanation. British humor, I guess... :-) Christian IBM 9 rue de Verdun 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00 Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10 Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above: Compagnie IBM France Siège Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex RCS Nanterre 552 118 465 Forme Sociale : S.A.S. Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ? SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:43:27 UTC