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; Thu, 20 Jan 1994 15:33:20 +0000
Received: by leopard.cs.byu.edu (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA15391;
          Thu, 20 Jan 1994 08:24:32 -0700
Sender: info-hol-request@leopard.cs.byu.edu
Errors-To: info-hol-request@leopard.cs.byu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Received: from dworshak.cs.uidaho.edu by leopard.cs.byu.edu 
          with SMTP (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA15387;
          Thu, 20 Jan 1994 08:24:30 -0700
Received: from panther.cs.byu.edu by dworshak.cs.uidaho.edu 
          with SMTP (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA19042;
          Thu, 20 Jan 1994 07:21:48 -0800
Received: from localhost by panther.cs.byu.edu with SMTP (1.37.109.8/16.2) 
          id AA12368; Thu, 20 Jan 1994 08:22:33 -0700
To: info-hol@cs.uidaho.edu
Subject: Re: X_EXISTS_TAC
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 20 Jan 1994 09:26:13 +0000. <"swan.cl.cam.:230770:940120092627"@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 08:22:32 -0700
From: Phil Windley <windley@leopard.cs.byu.edu>
Message-ID: <"swan.cl.cam.:116000:940120153451"@cl.cam.ac.uk>


Thanks to all who replied.

I knew I'd seen something like this before, but couldn't remember where.
As Konrad points out it was on info-hol.  Unfortunately, searching info-hol
didn't work since the search is done only on subject, author, and date.
This points out the need for meaningful subject lines.  Subjects like "I
have a question about HOL" won't be very useful later.  

I agree with John by the way, that strings are usually much more useful for
these sorts of things.  I've ben doing that for a while with state machine
execution tactics and it saves a lot of typing typing.

--phil--