> Well, Damian is indeed the soul of good taste. Just look at the Latin > and Klingon modules. Hmm... maybe those weren't such good examples. <Worf> I SHOULD KILL YOU FOR THAT! </Worf> ;-) I'll release the latest draft of the parameter lists RFC early next week. I think you'll find the syntax tolerable (especially the common cases). Damian
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should b... John Porter
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions shou... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functi... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functi... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should b... John Porter
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should b... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions shou... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should b... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions shou... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be fu... John Porter
- Re: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functions Damian Conway
- RE: RFC 168 (v1) Built-in functions should be functions Fisher Mark