In article <3pk035$f7r@terrazzo.lm.com>, kanak@telerama.lm.com says...
>
>Mike Maddux (mikem@bga.com) wrote:
>> Notice how Jim Fleming WILL NOT answer direct questions.  Instead he uses
>> very wierd ad hominem attacks.  He was asked if he could name some of the
>> people he referred to that "have seen the language, have a running
system,
>> and in some cases are actively 'adapting' it to their needs."  He did not
>> answer that and he has never, in the several months I have been following
>> his threads with a strange morbid fascination, answered that question or
any
>> similar question.
>
>Mike, I've asked for info with possible intent to PURCHASE, and I've
>never got an answer, so don't be suprised!!! Business 101 says that if a
>company won't answer a potential sales inquiry, the company doesn't exist
>period.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just what do you intend to purchase?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>
>And as far as this "leading edge OOP people love and are evaluating C@+"
>stuff, give me a break!!!  If I'm not leading edge, who is?  And I don't
                           @^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^@
>know anyone who's ever heard of anyone who knew what was going on with c@+.
>
>> My simple prediction - whatever he says, whether in response to this or
any
>> other post - he will not answer the simple question asked by the previous
>> poster.
>
>Absolutely.  I've been asking for information on C@+ for years.  I've yet
>to get any.  Perhaps I've been taking the wrong tack and should just hit
>my local Egghead for a copy, hey?
>--
>

@ - Can you fill us in on why you conclude that you are on the leading edge?

Jim Fleming
U.S. Citizen

In article <3pk0kn$5p7@news1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Just what do you intend to purchase?
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>@ - Can you fill us in on why you conclude that you are on the leading edge?
>
>Jim Fleming
>U.S. Citizen

Well, I just spent a year determining an operational semantics and set
of type checking rules for the core of C++ (overloading, inheritance,
hiding, virtual functions, constructors, etc.).  I would be interested
in seeing the "C+@" language specification.  I mailed you to that
effect, but I didn't get a response.  I tried your FTP site, and the blue
moons that it _is_ up and running, you don't have anything there
except a catalog of a bunch of files that _aren't there_.

I am not interested in what you think of the standardization process.
Luckily, C+@ hasn't gone through the same process, so it shouldn't be
in any way concealed from the public, right?





         Jim, where is the C+@ language specification?




Adam Seligman
95als@williams.edu