Received: by ATHENA-PO-1.MIT.EDU (5.45/4.7) id AA17922; Tue, 30 Apr 91 18:45:44 EDT
Received: from E40-008-10.MIT.EDU by ATHENA.MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA23996; Tue, 30 Apr 91 15:58:22 EDT
From: asj@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Received: by e40-008-10.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA18258; Tue, 30 Apr 91 15:56:50 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 15:56:50 -0400
Message-Id: <9104301956.AA18258@e40-008-10.MIT.EDU>
To: mlbarrow@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Cc: se26@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Michael L Barrow's message of Tue, 30 Apr 91 11:50:06 EDT <9104301550.AA27394@mountain-dew.MIT.EDU>
Subject: The formal specification for the undo procedure


I don't need a performance spec but a freature spec

Your first one was pretty good but it didn't say EXACTLY what happen when
you moved after an undo and then undid again etc....

	-Jules

ps : Your grade report got a Check (but was on the lower end...)
	- Make the design overview more cohesive
	- Write a more specific validation strategy
	- Module Dependency Diag. a bit confusing .. try to make lines top down