Re: DAML-Time

From: Jerry Hobbs ([email protected])
Date: 03/11/03

Next message: Drew McDermott: "Comments on Pat's comments"

Previous message: pat hayes: "Re: DAML-Time"
In reply to: pat hayes: "Re: DAML-Time"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Pat,

Thanks for your close reading and perceptive comments.

I don't have time right now to respond in detail, but I will say that
I don't think we are very far apart.  There are some issues we have
thrashed out to deadlock already (like partial ordering), and some
issues (like leap seconds) that I have avoided thinking about before
but should now.  I think the other disagreements are pretty small.

I'll respond more fully next week.

-- Jerry

Next message: Drew McDermott: "Comments on Pat's comments"
Previous message: pat hayes: "Re: DAML-Time"
In reply to: pat hayes: "Re: DAML-Time"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/11/03 EST