From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from whitecrow.demon.co.uk ([194.222.126.246]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <25539>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:52:03 -0500
Received: from whitecrow.demon.co.uk (steve@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by whitecrow.demon.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA23922
	for <rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu>; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:21:40 GMT
Message-Id: <200001142021.UAA23922@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: rc futures 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 01 Jan 2000 04:20:54 GMT."
             <cUvlaC7Mb1l@iadd.jivetech.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From:	Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:58:35 -0500


Paul wrote:

> Adding it to print.c would be problematic, I think, because there's no
> distinguished function for printing errors.

No big deal. If there are going to be any changes, then I think there
should be a clear distinction, during discussion, between those which
affect behaviour, and those which affect implementation. As I think I
mentioned earlier, when Tim raised the subject of 2.x, I first took
that to mean an internal reorganisation, rather than an external one.

steve