Re: CL package serious deficiencies

[Nix]

On 7 Feb 2012, Glenn Morris uttered the following:

> Nix wrote:
>
>> Well, if you find out what the problems are, I'll see about fixing them.
>
> You could look at
[...]
> if you want something to do (send any follow-ups to the relevant bug
> address, not here).

Thanks! on the list...

>                                              Also none of these have any
> relevance to whether cl is acceptable to use at run-time.

So... unreliability is *not* the reason, after all? And documentation-
weightiness, as Tom points out, cannot be the reason. So... what *is*
the reason? I (and others, it seems) are distinctly curious.

-- 
NULL && (void)