Message-ID: <3D065016.2CEAE048@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:31:34 -0400 From: CBFalconer 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. USE worldnet address!