🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4528@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, lilleyc@cs.man.ac.uk (Chris Lilley) writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.205618.21232@newstand.syr.edu> cfaigle@sccs.syr.edu
>(Christopher T. Faigle) writes: 
>>	I am using DEC PHIGS 2.2 (No PEX)
>
>DEC PHIGS 2.2 suppoorts PEX. The relevant workstation number is 221, as
>opposed to 211 for a straight X workstation.
>
	I should have said that I am not using PEX.  (Because I don't have
	the $$$ for the high-end hardware currently required!)
>
>So it _has_ been released, then... in the UK our information is that the
>product does not exist yet. We are verry anxious to get our hands on 2.3A
>ourselves. If anyone in the US is using 2.3A could they mail me a summary
>of the changes. For example, I gather that the spurious blank pages
>produced when writing to a PostScript, CGM, or DDIF workstation have been
>removed. Is this correct?
	We have it on CD, but it requires a complete workstation software
	update, so we have not installed it yet.  Further, I don't have
	the release notes yet.
>
>Also, have the gourand shading problems with fill area set with data been
>fixed? 
	Don't know.  I'll post when we update the software (hopefully less
		than 1 week!!)

>>Thanks,
>>-Chris
>
>I would also be interested in information on the binding used.
>
	I have been told that the DEC 2.3A binding does not conform to the ISO C
		binding.
>	Chris (another one)

Thanks Chris!  And thanks to all of the other people who responded.

-Chris (yet again. Did you keep up?)