Re: PostScript Language

Article View: comp.lang.postscript

Article #9094

Back to comp.lang.postscript Previous Next

#9094

From: Philip Machanick
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1990 21:53

8 lines
881 bytes

This discussion is on the point of becoming silly. Meta-points about
whether it's a good discussion or not need be no longer than this.

Some good points HAVE come out of it. Let's not stifle debate, but on
the other hand a bit of brevity would not be out of place either.

Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1990Feb27.215310.962@Neon.Stanford.EDU>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!shelby!neon!minnie.Stanford.EDU!philip

References: <99158@linus.UUCP> <9457@imagen.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!shelby!neon!minnie.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@minnie.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: PostScript Language
Message-ID: <1990Feb27.215310.962@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 27 Feb 90 21:53:10 GMT
References: <99158@linus.UUCP> <9457@imagen.UUCP>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 8

Reply to Parent Message