Message-ID:	<3D065016.2CEAE048@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:31:34 -0400
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization:	Ched Research
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: v2.03 update 2
References:	<10206111625 DOT AA14413 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Charles Sandmann wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (6/2002 Refresh)
> 
> And it's not obvious that's a date.  Changing this to:
> 
> djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (2002-06 Refresh)
> 
> Makes it just as unclear that it's a date (God forbid that someone
> interpret that as the 6th update of 2002).  While the suggestion:
> 
> djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (June 2002 Refresh)
> 
> While this is English centric it is more unambiguously a date; the
> rest of the text is English so it doesn't really matter.  After
> looking at all three, reading the comments others made - it seems
> to me the last one is the best choice (and what's currently in
> the refresh zips).

Well, I said my piece, and am obviously going to abide by whatever
is decided :-)  

Now, about nmalloc ....  I want to see what holes people can tear
in it :-(  I have forgotten what I did!

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

- Raw text -