Re: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms

Subject: Re: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms
From: John Havlicek (john.havlicek@motorola.com)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 15:32:17 PST

• Next message: Joseph Lu: "[sv-ac] Cyclicity issues"
• Previous message: Adam Krolnik: "Re: [sv-ac] alternative proposal to "syn1": remove binary delay"
• In reply to: Bassam Tabbara: "RE: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms"
• Next in thread: Cindy Eisner: "RE: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms"
• Reply: John Havlicek: "Re: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Bassam:

> There is no harm in evolving the discussion
> but let's table advanced semantics for now and clean up what we started
> with so that our users do not get into this confusion!

I agree.

J.H.

• Next message: Joseph Lu: "[sv-ac] Cyclicity issues"
• Previous message: Adam Krolnik: "Re: [sv-ac] alternative proposal to "syn1": remove binary delay"
• In reply to: Bassam Tabbara: "RE: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms"
• Next in thread: Cindy Eisner: "RE: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms"
• Reply: John Havlicek: "Re: [sv-ac] cyclicity and ill-founded forms"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 15:33:28 PST