Return-Path: <John.Harrison-request@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from leopard.cs.byu.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Tue, 24 May 1994 09:29:17 +0100
Received: by leopard.cs.byu.edu (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA01380;
          Tue, 24 May 1994 02:27:06 -0600
Sender: hol2000-request@lal.cs.byu.edu
Errors-To: hol2000-request@lal.cs.byu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Received: from swan.cl.cam.ac.uk by leopard.cs.byu.edu 
          with SMTP (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA01375;
          Tue, 24 May 1994 02:27:03 -0600
Received: from merganser.cl.cam.ac.uk (user rjb (rfc931)) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.5) to cl; Tue, 24 May 1994 09:26:49 +0100
To: hol2000@leopard.cs.byu.edu
Subject: Re: hol2000 is very silent
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 May 94 09:13:24 EDT." <"i80fs2.ira.732:24.04.94.07.13.27"@ira.uka.de>
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 09:26:36 +0100
From: Richard Boulton <Richard.Boulton@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <"swan.cl.cam.:145060:940524082705"@cl.cam.ac.uk>

Ralf Reetz writes:

> ... but it shows a
> problem with hol2000: I myself am not
> very encouraged to switch to another new hol
> again.

Unless I'm mistaken, you won't be asked to (or even be able to) for five years
or so. The intention of hol2000 is to develop the next generation of HOL-like
tools for round about the year 2000. Meanwhile, development of hol90 will,
I hope, continue.

Richard Boulton.