Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ubvax!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle!rjf From: rjf@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Cut-and-paste (was Re: sharedx and remote conferencing) Message-ID: <5452@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> Date: 12 Aug 88 16:08:57 GMT References: <5442@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <8808092002.AA05085@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: rjf@zaphod.UUCP (R.J.Faichney) Followup-To: comp.windows.misc Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Lines: 24 In article <8808092002.AA05085@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> bala@mozart.att.COM writes: >rjf@bloom-beacon.mit.edu writes: > >So why does X, like other windowing systems, provide 'cut buffers' and > >such stuff? > >[about short cuts (!), fine lines, natural operations and migration] Please see my latest article in comp.windows.misc - which is where I directed followups to the one you quote, as well as this! >if you have a specification for a language that random applications >can use to talk to each other in the interactive sense i would like to >hear about it. Wouldn't we all? You won't find the word 'random' in either of my original articles. In fact I'm fairly sure that such a thing is impossible. I'm into the medium more than the message at the moment. (And they are *NOT* the same!) (Though I'll admit you could call a language a medium - by the same analogy I'm talking about prefering one telephone network over another.) By the way, I suggest you see your news person about that strange address you've given me. Robin