> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why aren't all the conditions being types? > > Because the answer "Why aren't all the selectors being > types?" is equally valid. Which one gets typedefed as "and"? > Fair enough, are <and/> and <or/> the only ones in limbo? Can we (have we) type all the rest? Maybe we should provide alternative spellings that can be typed for those two until we get the roles in:
<alltrue> <atleastonetrue> (conditions) <allof> <atleastoneof> (selectors) Hummmmm, may be not :-) Jose Alberto PS: What is our assesment for implementing the role bit? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
