[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE>Re- bobP and simplified
- To: <heh@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: RE>Re- bobP and simplified
- From: Rick Mascitti <rick>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:11:12 PDT
- Cc: <xtech@xxxxxxxxxx>
>From heh@xxxxxxxxxx Fri Jun 29 23:07:10 1990
Received: from xanadu.com (swampthing) by xanadu (4.1/SMI-4.0.2) id AA03375; Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:07:07 PDT
Message-Id: <9006300607.AA03375@xanadu >
Date: 29 Jun 90 23:03:52
From: heh <heh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE>Re- bobP and simplified
Reply to: RE>Re: bobP and simplified if
Perhaps I missed the point of the argument. I intended to get the point
across that the >interface< of the high level stuff should contain NO xpp
classes (I even think it could live without tofu). The implementation, as I
discussed with roger earlier today, CAN be done on top of xpp.
(hope I got enough ~'s into this crap.... I'm tip'd from a tip...)
I think we're ferociously arguing for the same thing.
>From the users' (might I say "our") viewpoint: "see no xpp; do all atop xpp".