Hooper_TA@cc.curtin.edu.au (Todd Hooper) (01/16/91)
Any news on when Elm 2.4 will be available? The monthly posting says
'not before 5/1/91'.
I'm just wondering if it is worth holding out installing Elm 2.3 + patches
on our new Sun if a new version is going to arrive real soon.
Thanks,
--
Todd Hooper (Postmaster) Computing Centre
Curtin University of Technology
Western Australia
Internet : hooper_ta@cc.curtin.edu.au
Phone : +61 9 351 7467 (24 hour messaging system) Fax +61 9 351 2673syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (01/17/91)
Hooper_TA@cc.curtin.edu.au (Todd Hooper) writes: >Any news on when Elm 2.4 will be available? The monthly posting says >'not before 5/1/91'. >I'm just wondering if it is worth holding out installing Elm 2.3 + patches >on our new Sun if a new version is going to arrive real soon. As the statement says, Not before 5/1/91. Define real soon? thats at least 4+ months away, and, I slipped 2.3 about 3 months from its 1 year minimum, I doubt 2.4 will slip any less. So I stick with the not before 5/1/91, but probably later. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
Hooper_TA@cc.curtin.edu.au (Todd Hooper) (01/18/91)
In article <4677@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl>, edwin@cs.ruu.nl (Edwin Kremer) writes: > In <6749.279445fa@cc.curtin.edu.au> Hooper_TA@cc.curtin.edu.au (Todd Hooper) > writes: > | Any news on when Elm 2.4 will be available? The monthly posting says > | 'not before 5/1/91'. > Hmm, I guess I see the problem... you parsed the date as DD/MM/YY :-) > This is most likely not meant to be the fifth of January, but the > first of May 1991... Yes - you are all correct of course. I thought the 5th of January was a sort of strange date anyway, and I realized my mistake a few moments after I had posted. Maybe next time you could write it dd-mmm-yyyy just for us people on the other side of the world :-) I'll go ahead with installing 2.3. Thanks, Todd
prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) (01/21/91)
In article <6759.2796bade@cc.curtin.edu.au> Hooper_TA@cc.curtin.edu.au (Todd Hooper) writes: >Yes - you are all correct of course. I thought the 5th of January was a sort >of strange date anyway, and I realized my mistake a few moments after I had >posted. Maybe next time you could write it dd-mmm-yyyy just for us people >on the other side of the world :-) There's actually -- surprise -- an ISO standard on date and time formats (although I don't know what the number of that standard is). It says that dates should be written like yyyy-mm-dd or yy-mm-dd, with yyyy-mm-dd being the preferred format. A full date-and-time specification is, according to the standard, written like yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss. -- Robert Claeson |Reasonable mailers: rclaeson@erbe.se ERBE DATA AB | Dumb mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@sunet.se Jakobsberg, Sweden | Perverse mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@encore.com Any opinions expressed herein definitely belongs to me and not to my employer.