X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=uZrfaOiJKIMUy6yd5I/Mb5n26zksYGlYrzKPRRj+rJE=; b=ARoguxV0hpgWz0FXv8l9vLJIBS83l9xdciQj5mPnPnhF+O/kR4AH04QqUuuEWd3xnn RjLO6V7cnMNaWxyn1mI3xZ5apiGRH5GmD0+iTMaUK51YyyNMG5GqCAa4Kedgrx9ftzW9 LWsE6TZtKRbvgb56fn43Jo1FeOKvbCdyDIIhTAvFqI0iGYfQ6t7b83wF5jhJxyY9EvVE oATe2X6l+QzMPcXIfoaVNUgZtq4sbE5uSoescX+4X7fUD4CJZ/i7dWUV/W2asJBNpxaM qio/r+i5YqFsebIOuuBGjncJJMhtDVlyO6Uw2yO2DgJJ2Zhv5jha7eHSUnKn3bPMsyQA aVXA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.46.159 with SMTP id u31mr17251521iou.69.1436360214659; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 05:56:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <559C3778.4000105@neurotica.com> References: <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com> <1436295556 DOT 678 DOT 91 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C3778 DOT 4000105 AT neurotica DOT com> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:56:54 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? From: "Bob Paddock (graceindustries AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > Erlang looks fantastic, until you get to that > nonintuitive-to-thepoint-of-incomprehensibility syntax! That is where Elixir is coming form. I do think they made a mistake in getting rid of the single assignment variables. > (unless you're running an iAPX-432, which I'm assuming you > aren't! ;)) Didn't I give you my 432 data books? An obscure short lived processor that did end up influencing those that came after it. Have any 432 based machines in your collection? BTW, I would not describer your place as a rock. More of a cave. :-) Seriously, everyone really should make a trip to see the computer museum Dave is setting up. I've wondered around the maze of many machines he has in this large warehouse sized setting. Impressive collection.