Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:17:27PM -1000, Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >> The interesting one (IMHO) is 2001/145. Most of the mail log is an >> exchange between Alan and myself on pretty much the version and >> compatibility issues. Its as I remembered in that the issue was the >> binary module interface. However, I seemed to have made up anything >> about it ever being mis-classified. I must be confusing it with another >> case. >> > > That makes me feel better about my lack of imagination :) > I understand that. I'd rather lack imagination than memory.
What were we talking about? ;-) I hope that wasn't offensive. Obviously I was getting a bit ticked off last night, mostly about *any* view that Java is a roll model here. I absolutely know it is not and felt I had said that many times. I was submitter and owner of that case. Trust me on this one. Anyway, I just always loved that expression of Mr. Eckholt's and it seemed to fit. I've been guilty of it many times myself. It will take some careful reading to see how much of the Perl work can be seen as valid precedent. - jek3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20070328/cdbf7eb5/attachment.html>
