At 11:50 PM 2/10/99 +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
If Pete Resnick had the approval of the working group, why did he never
say so? He spent lots of time defending _his_ removal of the tokenizer.
Dan,
I believe that an original author of the removed construct, the chair of
the current working group, and both area directors are of the view that
there is strong working group consensus on this point. Yes, I now you keep
claiming otherwise, but doesn't that seem a tad... well, counterproductive?
Once again, I join the others who urge you to move past ad hominem issues,
like your above text.
Note, instead, that you are the only person submitting any messages in
support of your current position.
Whatever you might argue about the past, where is CURRENT support for the
objection you are raising?
Absent other such submissions, I suggest this thread be allowed to die it's
natural death.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
PRESIDENTS DAY OPEN HOUSE, 2/13
<http://www.brandenburg.com/misc/presday/presday-invite.gif>
Dave Crocker Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> Post Office Box 296,
U.P.M.
Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
