Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA19179; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:21:35 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA19095; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (IDENT:qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA19081; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:21:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16634 invoked by uid 666); 11 Feb 1999 06:21:49 -0000 Date: 11 Feb 1999 06:21:49 -0000 Message-ID: <19990211062149.16632.qmail@cr.yp.to> From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer? References: <19990211043557.16165.qmail@cr.yp.to> <4.2.0.24.19990211130120.00a9a340@shell2.bayarea.net> List-Unsubscribe: Kai Henningsen opposed Resnick's elimination of the tokenizer. So did Paul Overell. So did I. Several people have subsequently commented that the 822bis grammar is much more painful than the 822 grammar. Two people, Dave Crocker and Chris Newman, appear to support Resnick's elimination of the tokenizer. If it's true that there were ``deliberations'' leading to ``VERY strong consensus'' for the removal of the tokenizer, surely there are dozens of people who can remember participating in those ``deliberations'' and expressing their support. Somebody? Hello? Is there anybody out there? Dave Crocker writes: > You have confused two different submissions from two different people. No, I have not. I specifically asked you when these ``deliberations'' took place. I also asked you where I could find a record of these ``deliberations'' in the DRUMS archives. You dodged both questions. ---Dan