[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue PROCLAIM-LEXICAL (Version 9)
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: issue PROCLAIM-LEXICAL (Version 9)
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 20:10:25 GMT
- In-reply-to: email@example.com's message of 13 Mar 89 17:14 PST
> The last version of PROCLAIM-LEXICAL I have is Version 9, which was
> distributed before the Hawaii meeting. There were the various comments on
> Version 9, amendments proposed but not passed, and, more recently, mail
> from Sandra Loosemore, Jeff Dalton, JonL White, Gail Zacharias and David
> However, there's no new version.
Last I knew, JonL had said there were "conceptual" problems. I said
that, if there were, I didn't understand what they were. And that was
the last I saw on this topic. Maybe I'd managed to convince JonL?
In Hawaii, some people objected on grounds of efficiency or because
they didn't have a spare bit (see the Rees suggestion in the
I think the ammendments proposed in Hawaii might have answered both
kinds of objection, but I remember thinking that some of the
ammendments were unnecessary or wrong.
Perhaps those who still have objections can say what they would like
to change and why.