|
From: | Vadim V. Zhytnikov |
Subject: | [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.2 |
Date: | Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:30:39 +0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru-RU; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040407 |
Camm Maguire writes:
Greetings! I've taken a stab at some verbiage n the release notes page: http://people.debian.org/~camm/GCL_2_6_2_tests.html I'm writing this as always too quickly, late at night, being short on time. I'd greatly appreciate suggestions and comments/edits. Specifically, I want to make sure we don't overstate the condition of GCL, yet I feel we need to state clearly where possible and fair GCL's strong points to help ameliorate the prevailing somewhat negative impression of our project. Take care,
Very nice! Just one note. The phrase # GCL is about as robust/correct as CLISP seems to be misleading a bit. What do you mean by "robust/correct" ? I know that have random tester in mind but it is not so clear for casual user. So maybe something like # GCL compiler is about as robust/correct as CLISP one would be better. Best wishes and many thanks for your great work! -- Vadim V. Zhytnikov <address@hidden>
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |