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