Re: Commentary for third public review of X3J11 C

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #5288

#5288

From: Henry Spencer
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1988 16:17

9 lines
839 bytes

In article <59@radix> jimv@radix.UUCP (Jim Valerio) writes:
>I found the responses to David Hough's comments in the last review cycle were
>often depressingly mechanical, unbalanced, and to my mind, unreasoned. ...

Little birdies tell me that the review of the second-round public comments
was, in general, awfully rushed.  It shows.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1988Aug23.161745.26206@utzoo.uucp>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry

References: <64919@sun.uucp> <8358@smoke.ARPA> <59@radix>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Commentary for third public review of X3J11 C
Message-ID: <1988Aug23.161745.26206@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <64919@sun.uucp> <8358@smoke.ARPA> <59@radix>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 16:17:45 GMT

Reply to Parent Message