Re: rule 231:4 (VALID, +2.9 style)

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 01:58:29 PST

Next message: Bert Sevenhant: "rule 231:6"
Previous message: David Nicol: "Re: rule 231:4 (VALID, +2.9 style)"
In reply to: David Nicol: "Re: rule 231:4 (VALID, +2.9 style)"
Next in thread: Bert Sevenhant: "rule 231:6"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 20:39, David Nicol wrote:

> we now have two rules 231:4.  Please advise.

Whoops, the one submitted by Jonathan Van Matre is actually
231:5.  Ruling and style are the same as previously noted.

Next message: Bert Sevenhant: "rule 231:6"
Previous message: David Nicol: "Re: rule 231:4 (VALID, +2.9 style)"
In reply to: David Nicol: "Re: rule 231:4 (VALID, +2.9 style)"
Next in thread: Bert Sevenhant: "rule 231:6"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST