[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Syntax change proposal:
From: |
Janek Warchoł |
Subject: |
Re: Syntax change proposal: |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:56:10 +0200 |
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> The key point is being able to employ user-definable functions in a wide
> variety of situations. We currently have the situation that
> [...]
Whoah, that was one hell of an explanation. I think i understood it
(at least most parts) and i support the change.
What about trimming it (read: turning into a sales pitch ;-P), adding
"any objections?" at the end and sending it to -user?
Graham is right that we better ask before we change.
cheers,
Janek
- Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/15
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Graham Percival, 2012/07/15
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/16
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, David Kastrup, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Benkő Pál, 2012/07/19
- Re: Syntax change proposal:, Keith OHara, 2012/07/25