[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility
From: |
ari |
Subject: |
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility |
Date: |
Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:57:44 -0500 |
The thread you mention does follow a similar discussion, but i don't
believe it obviates my argument.
ari
address@hidden said this stuff:
> ari wrote:
> > I notice that the 'head' and 'tail' commands, in the latest version of
> > coreutils, were modified to do away with the following options:
> >
> > -<number> (head, tail)
> > +<number> (tail)
>
> This has just recently been discussed. Please read the archive for
> details of this discussion.
>
> http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2003-09/msg00082.html
>
> Bob
- "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Bob Proulx, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility,
ari <=
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Jarc, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Jarc, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/04
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/04
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/03