From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2008-07-03T03:27:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Ranges and Enumerable problems

On 02.07.2008 19:48, Adam Shelly wrote:
> On 7/2/08, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Adam Shelly <adam.shelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Some odd behavior arises because
>>> (s<=>s.succ) != -1 for all s.
>> Is that so??????
>>
>> I guess you mean there exists an s for which ...
>>
> I'm not sure what you mean

He meant

You said: for all s: (s<=>s.succ) != -1

He said: there exists at least one s: (s<=>s.succ) != -1

It's probably Robert's mathematical training which made him detect that 
the two statements are not equivalent - and he is absolutely right. :-)

Kind regards

	robert