Quote Quad Editorial Policy 
Author Message
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Quote:
Bill Chang writes...

[stuff deleted]
The Quote-Quad does not seem willing/able to publish long,substantial
pieces, especially of a controversial nature.

[stuff deleted]

This is not a well-informed comment.

Quote Quad is the newsletter of ACM SIGAPL - please read the Message
from the Editors on Page 1 of the June 1994 issue. If I may briefly
condense the message there down to a single sentence or two...

APL Quote Quad is happy to receive and publish material from any SIGAPL
member; the only constraint on length is that of our overall page
count. There is no constraint on controversy. The only requirement
that we do have is that your articles should be your own work. Our
editors (who I hope will bear with me as I compose a prompt reply on
SIGAPL's behalf) are happy to work with any author on request.

Please also bear in mind that the format of Quote Quad is two-fold; we
publish regular issues which are (almost exclusively) not refereed
material. In addition, every year the Conference Proceedings are an
issue of Quote Quad (they go not only to SIGAPL members but also to
many libraries worldwide); the Conference Proceedings are subject to a
strict blind peer review process.

So, if you want to write informal/controversial/short/long articles we
welcome these to the pages of Quote Quad. If you need to write
refereed papers we also welcome these to the Conference Proceedings
issues of Quote Quad.

.............../Dick Bowman (SIGAPL Chair)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{*filter*} Bowman    | Phone: (+44) 81 520 6334      | APL95 San Antonio 4-8 June

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:07:05 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Quote:

>Bill Chang writes...
>>The Quote-Quad does not seem willing/able to publish long,substantial
>>pieces, especially of a controversial nature.

>This is not a well-informed comment.

It is my personal observation; I sure hope it is wrong.

Quote:
>Quote Quad is the newsletter of ACM SIGAPL - please read the Message
>from the Editors on Page 1 of the June 1994 issue. If I may briefly
>condense the message there down to a single sentence or two...

>APL Quote Quad is happy to receive and publish material from any SIGAPL
>member; the only constraint on length is that of our overall page
>count.

This is a serious constraint, at 32(?) pages per issue, 96 per year.  
Most articles that appear are a few pages long at most.

Quote:
>There is no constraint on controversy. The only requirement
>that we do have is that your articles should be your own work. Our
>editors (who I hope will bear with me as I compose a prompt reply on
>SIGAPL's behalf) are happy to work with any author on request.

History:  In the spring of '93 QQ editor Bob Brown suggested that the ASCII
thread on c.l.a. is of interest to the APL public, and asked me to submit a
compilation and condensation of articles.  I did, and Bob then did a lot of
work to format the articles into a sort of "panel discussion".  At this
point Ray Polivka became the new editor and _presumably_ rejected the
thread.  I say "presumably" because to this day he has not contacted me
officially or unofficially.  So, I do not know his reasons, and frankly
no longer care.  I am only writing this to respond to{*filter*} (who throughout
this mess was fair and helpful).  Anyone who wants to read this old but
timeless thread (jointly authored by about 20 people, though I did write a
fair chunk) can anonymous ftp cshl.org, look around directory pub/bill/apl.


Quote:
>Please also bear in mind that the format of Quote Quad is two-fold; we
>publish regular issues which are (almost exclusively) not refereed
>material. In addition, every year the Conference Proceedings are an
>issue of Quote Quad (they go not only to SIGAPL members but also to
>many libraries worldwide); the Conference Proceedings are subject to a
>strict blind peer review process.

>So, if you want to write informal/controversial/short/long articles we
>welcome these to the pages of Quote Quad. If you need to write
>refereed papers we also welcome these to the Conference Proceedings
>issues of Quote Quad.

>.............../Dick Bowman (SIGAPL Chair)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dick Bowman    | Phone: (+44) 81 520 6334      | APL95 San Antonio 4-8 June

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fri, 21 Mar 1997 04:48:24 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Quote:

>Bill Chang writes...
>[stuff deleted]
>The Quote-Quad does not seem willing/able to publish long,substantial
>pieces, especially of a controversial nature.

>So, if you want to write informal/controversial/short/long articles we
>welcome these to the pages of Quote Quad. If you need to write
>refereed papers we also welcome these to the Conference Proceedings
>issues of Quote Quad.

Let me don my APL95 Program CO-Chair hat for a moment:

I want to see APL95 represent a turning point in APL Conferences,
from being a ho-hum, more of the same sort of Conference, with some
new research and a lot of so-so  articles, into a stimulating
and vibrant Conference, bringing new {*filter*} into the Arrays World.

Having said that [and no doubt provoking flamage from several past
Program Chairs, etc., who are convinced that APL Conferences have been
Just Peachy], let me hereby solicit the following types of
submissions to APL95:

a. Success stories: "I used APL to churn butter, and it was swell. Here's
   why APL worked when other approaches failed". NOTE: This is not
   the same as the "I wrote this here application. Oh, yeah, I used APL
   to do it."
   The key idea here is to highlight those aspects of APL that made
   the story a success. Also, to suggest APLish sorts of changes
   that other languages could adopt to improve their productivity.

b. Failure stories: "I used APL to churn butter, and it was an utter
   nightmare. It was slow, unusable, hard to maintain, etc" The key
   here is to highight those aspects of APL that made the application
   hard or impossible in APL, and to suggest CHANGES in the languages
   that would permit this to turn into a success story.

c. Controversial articles. I'm not sure what Bill means here, but
   presumably taking potshots at APL. I'm VERY much in favor of this,
   IF it is constructive criticism, and suggests a course of action
   that the APL community [AHEM: Are the vendors listening?] can take
   to resolve problems.

d. How-to-do-it-in-language-Q: APL design critiques and proposals for
   language extension OR CHANGE that are based on successes in other
   languages.  The APL community has engaged in naval gazing for a
   long time, while other communities have been making progress
   in areas of maintainability, performance, etc.
   We should listen to those communities and steal their best ideas.

e. How-to-do-Q-in-APL: Articles of a tutorial nature, that describe
   an application area [signal processing, scheduling, actuarial,
   forecasting] in sufficient detail that a reader can Actually Go Off
   and Build Something in APL. I get REALLY irritated when I read
   a Conference article on topic Q which talks all around the topic,
   and never gives you sufficient information or detail to actually
   solve the problem by yourself.

f. Roll your own: Suggest something off the wall. I'm interested.
   email me, and if it's interesting to the community at large, I'll
   post a summary.

I also want to get:

Tutorials: LOTS of tutorials, to be run during the Conference, on
           any relevant topic. One offered thus far is "How to
           Design and Use Neural Nets in APL".

Workshops: REAL workshops, with small groups actually hammering out
           ideas. Recent postings on language design issues would fit
           well into this arena.

Publicity: We need to get lots of people interested in APL95 and aware
           of it. If you have ideas that will bring in the popular press,
           let's hear about it.

Bob



Sun, 23 Mar 1997 03:11:45 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Quote:
>Let me don my APL95 Program CO-Chair hat for a moment:

[...]

BEAUTIFUL.

Let me add, I especially liked the term "Arrays World".  Short versions
or abstracts of the kinds of papers Bob wants to see can also go into a
supplementary FAQ.




Sun, 23 Mar 1997 05:53:34 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Let me please add some comments to the discussion that you brought up,
Bill, regarding the running of long articles.  You said:

Quote:
>  Quote-Quad does not seem willing/able to publish long, substantial
>  pieces, especially of a controversial nature.

I'll try to cover each of your points here.  (Ray Polivka, the Quote
Quad Executive Editor, is presently travelling through France.)

____
SIZE:

The article was not omitted simply because it didn't fit into our page
count ...although that was *part* of the problem.  Through careful
formatting, and a lot of work, the article you're referring to got
reduced down to "just" 12 pages (...it had been much larger).  That
*might* have been workable, although 12 pages is a quite long article,
even if there were NO page-count constraints (...that's starting to be
long for Encyclopaedia Brittanica).  However, it looked as though the
meat of the article could be condensed to a much smaller size... but
actually doing that would be a much larger job.

Quote:
>  I might collate what I've written here and send it off...  Can I
>  quote you guys?

Let's explore that:

_____________________
PERMISSION TO PUBLISH:

The next problem that we faced was that the article in question was a
collection of comments from this forum.

As{*filter*} Bowman pointed out, it is a normal expectation that the content
of a paper is your own work.  This article was a very special case, in
that it was comprised of discussions from c.l.a, rather than being your
own writing.  And yes, I realize that you DID spell out what it was;
that's fine.  But its special nature still caused some difficulties.

While it may be arguable as to whether or not the statements made on
c.l.a are public property (and available for reprinting) or not, that
question quickly became moot, as ACM disallowed it.  They said that we
could not reprint the comments without a sign-off from each of the
participants-- which would have been quite a task, noting that there
were about twenty participants in the discussions.  Your comment this
week, Bill, asking if you can quote people, is a start, and is a piece
that was missing before.  Of course, that permission would have to
come from everyone involved... many (most?) of whom would probably
want to review and edit their piece.

The article in question was related to renditions of APL as ASCII text.
That can certainly be made into a very interesting article, and we
would like very much to see it.  Controversy is no impediment.  But it
would seem to be much more useful to have an OVERVIEW of the on-going
USENET discussions, rather than so much of the detailed discussions
themselves.  Discussing the problems and showing the conclusions would
be preferable to taking the readers through all of the discussions
again.

_____________________
CONTROVERSIAL CONTENT:

You suggested that Quote Quad won't publish anything controversial.
We really don't have any such constraint.  I have published material
in Quote Quad that I have personally cringed at, but if it's factual
and thought-provoking, that's okay.

Here is a fairly recent statement from ACM regarding their own view
of SIG newsletters:

Quote:
>  From the beginning, the SIG newsletters were intended to be
>  informal, timely, provocative, controversial, lively, and even
>  irreverent, not to mention trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
>  courteous, thrifty, brave, and clean.  We wanted them to be
>  distinctively different from the journals in style and content and
>  to give much faster turnaround than the journals or the
>  Communications.  The Publications Board directed us to carry in the
>  masthead the statement, "Technical papers herein are unrefereed
>  working papers."  This statement was intended partly to head off
>  any drift in the direction of newsletters becoming stodgy journals,
>  and partly to protect authors who wanted to submit more complete
>  versions of papers to journals at a later time.  At some point
>  within the past decade this statement disappeared.

_______________
REFEREED PAPERS:

Bill Chang said:

Quote:
>  A question came up before, whether there should be a refereed APL
>  journal (other than Vector).  ...  I (and many others) would like
>  to see Vector gain wider circulation in the U.S. and become that
>  "refereed journal".

Notice that the ACM statement above also touches upon the question of
refereed papers, and they have discussed it in more detail elsewhere.
The annual Conference Proceedings Issue of Quote Quad does contain
refereed papers, but the other issues are not refereed; the reason for
this is that full, double-blind refereeing of the papers (as is done
for the conference papers) would be as time-consuming for each issue
as it is for the conference papers, and we would like Quote Quad to be
more timely than that.  ACM is also very specific about what
constitutes "refereeing" of papers; it is not a term that they use
lightly.  Having the editors review the submissions does NOT qualify
for being called "refereed."  Although I don't know what procedures
Vector follows, I would be surprised if they would be considered to be
"refereed" by ACM's rules.

______________________________
PAGE COUNT OF QQ VERSUS VECTOR:

Quote:
>  This is a serious constraint, at 32(?) pages per issue, 96 per year.
>  Most articles that appear are a few pages long at most. ...
>  (Vector) is 144 pages per issue, full of meat and guts.

*S*i*g*h*... I hear this a lot, so let me please cite some specifics.

Yes, Vector does indeed have lots of pages (although, be fair; they
are much smaller pages... try a *word* count).  I'm have no complaints
about Vector; I think they are doing a fine job.  (I wish we had a
staff their size!)  But please remember that the annual Conference
Proceedings are an issue of Quote Quad, and come with your regular
subscription.  Adding in the several hundred pages for a typical issue
of the proceedings (this year was unusually short-- only 235 pages),
Quote Quad carries considerably more material as Vector, and at a very
competitive cost to its subscribers.  And that's okay; there's room
for both.

Each page in QQ contains as much as about 1.9 pages in Vector.  The
average size of items in Vector looks to me to be about 5.25 pages;
that would be under 3 pages in QQ.  The longest item that I saw in the
January issue of Vector (at hand, here) was 13 pages; that would be
under 7 pages in Quote Quad.  And the 12-page QQ article that you
mentioned would come out to 23 pages in Vector.  I don't think Vector
commonly runs articles that large, either.

By my count, Vector gives you 144x4 = 576 pages/year, and Quote Quad
gives you (3x32)+325 (or so) = 421 pages/year.  It does sound like
Vector gives you more, doesn't it?  But hold on-- since each page of
Quote Quad carries about 1.9 times as much material as each page of
Vector, 421x1.9 = about 800 Vector-equivalent pages/year.  Last year,
Quote Quad delivered 437 pages (that's 830 Vector-equivalent pages).
QQ sounds pretty good to me.  And again, why choose?  ...There's room
for both.

Finally, please also notice that if you attend the annual conference,
your SIGAPL membership and Quote Quad subscription are *free*-- how's
*that* for a deal!

Any newsletter can only publish material that is available to it.
Sending more good material to QQ will help us to improve it more.

________________________________
FEEDBACK (and dropping the ball):

Bill, I wasn't aware that you had never been kept apprised of the
status of that article; I thought this had been discussed with you.
(This goes back a year and a half now, so I'm trying to reconstruct
the situation.)  If you ever don't hear back from us when you think
you should, please feel free to call *us*.

I also spent a long time working with that article, trying to find
ways to format it and present it, and dealing with ACM.  I'm sorry
that it ended up the way that it did, and I apologize for the
confusion.

It always has been the case that NOT ALL of the material submitted to
Quote Quad (or to any publication) gets accepted, for a variety of
reasons.  But I do wish that this had been discussed more with you.

I hope that you will consider writing other articles for Quote Quad.
You are certainly informative and articulate on c.l.a-- I would be
very interested in seeing an article of your own material.  And don't
let the possibility of controversy stop you!

--Jon McGrew
  Quote Quad Production Editor



Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:03:19 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy
I want to thank Jon McGrew for a most encouraging reply.  I think this kind
of openness is good for APL.  Earlier, I replied to{*filter*} with a suggestion
that the QQ accept a _limited_ number of papers "Submitted For Publication
Only" for the Conference issue.  These would be refereed together with "normal"
submissions but are marked "SFPO".  As you noted, this year's Conference
issue is unusually small; an SFPO option might have increased submissions.
(It might have decreased attendance by a few; but hopefully many more APLers
would be writing papers, and who knows might attend future conferences.)

Regarding c.l.a. discussions, my personal opinion is that a slugfest is far
more interesting and TRUTHFUL than any summary can be.  The ASCII thread
would have been dry and technical in any single author's voice, and probably
(rightfully?) ignored.  The recent "scope" discussion is a case in point--
I suspect most APLers would skip a section of the Conference devoted to
something as dry as scope issues, or even "structured programming".  Eke's
experience at APL94 (only a handful showed up) is proof positive of that.  
On the other hand, a transcription of c.l.a. open debate might be more
interesting, especially if it contained eloquent statements of points of view
by people who are obviously devoted to APL.  I'm not really interested in
submitting "my own material" at this point--the reasons are (1) I'm not
supposed to be writing APL papers given my current (government funded) research;
(2) I don't think a technical APL paper among many is necessarily a better
"advocate" than simply writing letters to c.l.a.  Something like a manifesto
for a PD APL, jointly authored by a whole group of people, stands a much better
chance of getting _read_, by both APLers and non-APLers.  A FAQ we would be
proud to show the world also seems much more important at this point.

Or perhaps the QQ can include a "Comp.lang.apl Letters" department, printed
small...

Best regards,


p.s. I assume the "12 page" ASCII piece was already in smaller type/2-up etc.



Sun, 23 Mar 1997 19:44:45 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Quote:


>>Let me don my APL95 Program CO-Chair hat for a moment:

>>Having said that [and no doubt provoking flamage from several past
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>OK you ask for it

Alain: I was not intending to pick on you or APL94 specifically. I
think this problem has been with the conference for the last 4-5 years.

Quote:
>If you can get enough computers to organize *REAL* tutorials you are
>lucky; btw do not expect some big company to provide you the machines or
>ask to have the promise on paper. :-(

   I had no trouble in obtaining several rooms-full of machines for
   APL93 tutorials. It DID require some planning and early arrangements.

Quote:
>A workshop is REAL if the chair person *and* the participants decide to
>make it real; of course the chair person should organize the meeting as
>a discussion and not as a personnal demonstration/paper.

   Agreed.

Quote:
>For APL94 I wanted to have real workshops which would come with a list
>of further actions (like creation of an active committee, recommendations
>to the implementers, ...); this was asked at the opening session, but ...

I think that, to be effective, this sort of thing has to be arranged
BEFORE the conference, so that people come to the conference planning to
attend Workshop X.

Quote:
>I am very sorry for Walter Spunde (and the others of the silent community)
>who were disappointed by not real workshops.

I look forward to seeing Walter and others propose workshops for APL95.

Quote:
>The point here is to make very clear to the chair person that it is a
>workshop and not a tutorial, ... and have the participants think about it
>*before* the conference and present a position paper (this was also asked
>for APL94 but nothing came in).

YES!

Quote:
>The major problem for the APL conferences is the passivity of the APL
>community the people who take active part on the net do not participate
>to the conferences (I was not at Stanford but I participated to APL90,
>APL92, APL93 and APL94, plus SOVAPL meeting in 1991).

That's one reason I am approaching c.l.a. NOW, in order to bring these
people out, and to allow them to have an impact on the direction of
APL evolution and the vitality of the Conference.

Quote:
>Alain Delmotte
>(unfortunately) APL94 Program Chairman

Don't feel bad. You did a great job, from all reports.

Quote:
>(flame on)
>PS. BTW Bob, you did not come to APL94, nor did send any position paper,
>success stories, poster, ...
>(flame off)

That's right. It has something do with trying to finish my thesis,
and lack of $$. I also didn't submit a paper because I didn't consider
that I had anything concrete enough to warrant publication.

Bob



Mon, 24 Mar 1997 06:09:58 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Quote:

>[stuff deleted]

>Let me don my APL95 Program CO-Chair hat for a moment:

>I want to see APL95 represent a turning point in APL Conferences,
>from being a ho-hum, more of the same sort of Conference, with some
>new research and a lot of so-so  articles, into a stimulating
>and vibrant Conference, bringing new {*filter*} into the Arrays World.

>Having said that [and no doubt provoking flamage from several past

                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK you ask for it

Quote:
>Program Chairs, etc., who are convinced that APL Conferences have been
>Just Peachy], let me hereby solicit the following types of
>submissions to APL95:

>a. Success stories: "I used APL to churn butter, and it was swell. Here's
>   why APL worked when other approaches failed". NOTE: This is not
>   the same as the "I wrote this here application. Oh, yeah, I used APL
>   to do it."
>   The key idea here is to highlight those aspects of APL that made
>   the story a success. Also, to suggest APLish sorts of changes
>   that other languages could adopt to improve their productivity.

For APL94 I did ask/suggest/request that type of papers/reports to
build an "APL Showbook"; I started asking at APL93 (closing session) and
continued during the wholle year up to July.

I got only two (2) documents (from E. van Batenburg and H. Davies).

Quote:
>[stuff deleted]

>e. How-to-do-Q-in-APL: Articles of a tutorial nature, that describe
>   an application area [signal processing, scheduling, actuarial,
>   forecasting] in sufficient detail that a reader can Actually Go Off
>   and Build Something in APL. I get REALLY irritated when I read
>   a Conference article on topic Q which talks all around the topic,
>   and never gives you sufficient information or detail to actually
>   solve the problem by yourself.

This is an excellent idea, which is/was part of the idea behind the
APLEDU-L discussion list. (to subscribe to the list and the APL-L list

SUB APLEDU-L your-name-in-full)

This was also the reason why in the referee report for APL94 I added the
questions:

Implementation
The paper allows an easy implementation by:
[ ] a specialist in the field - non APLer
[ ] a specialist in the field - APLer
[ ] a non-specialist - non APLer
[ ] a non-specialist - APLer
(in [ ] an appreciation between 0 very bad and 10 very good)

Quote:
>[stuff deleted]

>Tutorials: LOTS of tutorials, to be run during the Conference, on
>           any relevant topic. One offered thus far is "How to
>           Design and Use Neural Nets in APL".

If you can get enough computers to organize *REAL* tutorials you are
lucky; btw do not expect some big company to provide you the machines or
ask to have the promise on paper. :-(

Quote:

>Workshops: REAL workshops, with small groups actually hammering out
>           ideas. Recent postings on language design issues would fit
>           well into this arena.

A workshop is REAL if the chair person *and* the participants decide to
make it real; of course the chair person should organize the meeting as
a discussion and not as a personnal demonstration/paper.

For APL94 I wanted to have real workshops which would come with a list
of further actions (like creation of an active committee, recommendations
to the implementers, ...); this was asked at the opening session, but ...
I am very sorry for Walter Spunde (and the others of the silent community)
who were disappointed by not real workshops.

The point here is to make very clear to the chair person that it is a
workshop and not a tutorial, ... and have the participants think about it
*before* the conference and present a position paper (this was also asked
for APL94 but nothing came in).

Quote:
>[stuff deleted]

>Bob

The major problem for the APL conferences is the passivity of the APL
community the people who take active part on the net do not participate
to the conferences (I was not at Stanford but I participated to APL90,
APL92, APL93 and APL94, plus SOVAPL meeting in 1991).

Regards

Alain Delmotte
(unfortunately) APL94 Program Chairman

(flame on)
PS. BTW Bob, you did not come to APL94, nor did send any position paper,
success stories, poster, ...
(flame off)

but many thanks for your help as referee and for giving me information to
start using TeX/LaTeX (a bonus for the preparation of the conference).

============================================================
Avenue du Marathon, 6
B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
BELGIUM
tel.: (Belgium) - 10 - 45 11 92
fax.:(Belgium) - 10 - 45 23 26



Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:51:50 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy
With regard to Jon McGrew's posting on "ACM wanting signoff from
all participants on materials from c.l.a":

Computer Architecture News, aka "CAN", from SIGARCH, carries
heavily-edited [for space and comprehension, dead air removal, etc]
excepts from comp.arch. It's quite good. Not sure if they get
signoff from authors or not.

Bob

ps: With regard to a recent posting about the "excessive" costs of
APL conferences:

Larry Moore [COnference Chair of APL93] asked me to remind people
that the cost of APL93 was the SAME as APL92 in Stanford.

Bob



Mon, 24 Mar 1997 00:23:49 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

Quote:
>Tutorials: LOTS of tutorials, to be run during the Conference, on
>           any relevant topic. One offered thus far is "How to
>           Design and Use Neural Nets in APL".

No.  How to build a graphical user interface of "this" type or "that" type.

Quote:
>Workshops: REAL workshops, with small groups actually hammering out
>           ideas. Recent postings on language design issues would fit
>           well into this arena.

How many people like us can afford to go?

Quote:
>Publicity: We need to get lots of people interested in APL95 and aware
>           of it. If you have ideas that will bring in the popular press,
>           let's hear about it.

Let people (i.e. BYTE, InfoWorld, SIGPLAN...) try out a (good) PD ASCII APL
well in advance of APL95.




Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:13:33 GMT  
 Quote Quad Editorial Policy

 >   ...  Earlier, I replied to{*filter*} with a suggestion
 > that the QQ accept a _limited_ number of papers "Submitted For
 > Publication Only" for the Conference issue.  These would be refereed
 > together with "normal" submissions but are marked "SFPO".  As you
 > noted, this year's Conference issue is unusually small; an SFPO option
 > might have increased submissions.  

It is my impression that for the past decade or more,
SIGAPL has used publication in the conference proceedings
as an incentive to get authors to attend a conference.
If SIGAPL shifts its policy on this, I will be surprised.

One might think that there is a place for another publication,
a journal that would not require attendance at a conference.

Lee
--
Prof. Leroy J.{*filter*}ey, Faculty of Mathematics, U of Waterloo, Canada  N2L 3G1

         ...!uunet!watmath!ljdickey
                1-519-888-4567, ext 5559



Tue, 01 Apr 1997 05:56:50 GMT  
 
 [ 13 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Arriving Soon in APL Quote Quad

2. Quote Quad

3. Now in December in APL Quote Quad

4. Coming in December in APL Quote Quad

5. APL Quote-Quad

6. Coming in June in APL Quote Quad

7. ASCII APL (Submission to APL Quote-Quad) *LONG*

8. Call for Participation: APL Quote-Quad

9. APL quote-quad

10. APL Quote Quad

11. Quote Quad

12. Quote Quad -- 6/96 and 9/96

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software