Re: RE>Re- bobP and simplified

[Rick Mascitti <rick>]

>From heh@xxxxxxxxxx Fri Jun 29 23:07:10 1990
	Return-Path: <heh@xxxxxxxxxx>
	Received: from xanadu.com (swampthing) by xanadu  (4.1/SMI-4.0.2) id AA03375; Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:07:07 PDT
	Message-Id: <9006300607.AA03375@xanadu >
	Date: 29 Jun 90 23:03:52
	From: heh <heh@xxxxxxxxxx>
	Subject: RE>Re-  bobP and simplified
	To: rick@xxxxxxxxxxx
	Cc: xtech@xxxxxxxxxx
	Status: R

	        Reply to:   RE>Re:  bobP and simplified if
	     Perhaps I missed the point of the argument.   I intended to get the point
	across that the >interface< of the high level stuff should contain NO xpp
	classes (I even think it could live without tofu).  The implementation,  as I
	discussed with roger earlier today, CAN be done on top of xpp.

	--Hugh



(hope I got enough ~'s into this crap.... I'm tip'd from a tip...)
I think we're ferociously arguing for the same thing.
>From the users' (might I say "our") viewpoint: "see no xpp; do all atop xpp".