[CL] Quantified sentences

[Cameron Ross]

Yes, according to the CLIF grammar it is allowed, but does it make sense 
for this to be allowed?

Cameron.

Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Wednesday December 2 2009, Cameron Ross wrote:
>   
>> Is the following valid CLIF:
>>
>> (forall () (a))
>>     
>
> According to the grammar, yes. The EBNF construct { stuff } means zero 
> or more repetitions of stuff.
>
>
>   
>> Cameron.
>>     
>
>
> Randall Schulz
> _______________________________________________
> CL mailing list
> CL at philebus.tamu.edu
> http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/cl
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/cl/attachments/20091202/404fb5ec/attachment.html>