Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!inmos!geoffb@butcombe.inmos.co.uk
From: geoffb@butcombe.inmos.co.uk (Geoff Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reuse and Abstraction (was: reuse questions)
Message-ID: <7302@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 7 Jun 90 09:14:03 GMT
References: <4979@stpstn.UUCP> <102100009@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <19820@duke.cs.duke.edu> <12085@june.cs.washington.edu> <81111@tut.cis.ohio-state. <81153@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: geoffb@inmos.co.uk (Geoff Barrett)
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 10

In article <81153@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bruce Weide <weide@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>                       Do you have something you'd call an acceptable
>"rigorous" specification of a word processor?

What about an acceptable "informal" specification of a word processor?

vvv|       |vvv-------------------------------------
    \ o o /
     \   /           Wot! No Queen's Award logo?
      \_/