From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <28314>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:43:36 -0500 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (gate3-relay.engr.sgi.com [130.62.1.234]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id IAA07556; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:57:55 -0800 (PST) mail_from (pj@sam.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sam.engr.sgi.com (sam.engr.sgi.com [163.154.6.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id JAA64038; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:02:31 -0800 (PST) mail_from (pj@sam.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from pj@localhost) by sam.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id JAA99286; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:01:34 -0800 (PST) From: pj@sam.engr.sgi.com (Paul Jackson) Message-Id: <200003231701.JAA99286@sam.engr.sgi.com> To: Bengt Kleberg Subject: Re: Applying old samx patch to newer sam? Cc: sam-fans@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:03:28 -0500 Bengt wrote: |> Please note that I am trying to 'maintain' sam-9libs. Thank-you and bless you! |> I rather not include this [samx] in sam-9libs. That's fine - I wasn't expecting sam-9libs to accomodate samx. I acknowledge that samx is "controversial". I should have been clearer that I was more looking for feedback from other samx users as to whether I should worry about the failed chunk of the patch. |> 1 sam is supposed to be mouse driven, not keyboard driven. It is common-place for the finest tools to be written with a focused vision, and then for users to turn around and do the darndest things with them. Life is good. ======================================================================= I won't rest till it's the best ... Software Production Engineer Paul Jackson (pj@sgi.com; pj@usa.net) 3x1373 http://sam.engr.sgi.com/pj