🚀 go-pugleaf

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to sage:
>>> RCPT To:<phil@iseng.compnews.co.uk>
<<< 550 User unknown
550 phil@iseng... User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from icdoc.UUCP by hyperion.cps.compnews.co.uk; Sat, 8 Feb 92 06:14:50 GMT
Original-Via:  uk.ac.uknet  ; 8 Feb 92 5:47 GMT
Received: from news.cis.ohio-state.edu by eros.uknet.ac.uk via EUnet 
          with SMTP (PP) id <7437-0@eros.uknet.ac.uk>;
          Sat, 8 Feb 1992 05:26:43 +0000
Received: by news.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.911008) id AA02585;
          Thu, 6 Feb 92 15:57:26 -0500
Received: from USENET by news.cis.ohio-state.edu with netnews 
          for gnu-misc-discuss-mail@cis.ohio-state.edu (gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu);
          contact usenet@news.cis.ohio-state.edu if you have questions.
To: gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu
Date: 6 Feb 92 13:18:57 GMT
Message-Id: <STEINARB.92Feb6141857@kvitpil.idt.unit.no>
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway
From: Steinar Bang <steinarb@idt.unit.no>
Original-Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@edu.ohio-state.cis
Subject: Someone planning/writing a GNU TeX?
Original-Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-post@cps.compnews.co.uk

I seem to remember some postings on this a while back.

So my questions are:

  i) Is it true?
 ii) If it's true: why?
     (Is it make a smaller, faster, more portable version, using pure
      C and bison/flex code? Or is there some idelogical reason?)

- Steinar