RE: [sv-ec] rewording 1615

From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker_at_.....>
Date: Tue Sep 11 2007 - 07:16:35 PDT
If that is the case, then the 1615 proposal is incorrect.

Shalom
 

> > The 1615 proposal does not mention always procedures and the 1336 
> > proposal does. Is that correct?
> 
> Presumably not.  I have always (sorry) been under the 
> impression that "always" was semantically indistinguishable 
> from "initial forever"; is there some subtle difference that 
> has eluded me?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue Sep 11 07:17:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 11 2007 - 07:17:17 PDT