[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Could we please take discussion of 179 to -data? I think that's where > it should be. > > K. Personnally, I don't see any objection to this. If everybody is ok, why not ? How should I process ? Submit again the proposal with a modified mailing-list email ? Gael,
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Tom Christiansen
- Please take RFC 179 discussion ... skud
- Re: Please take RFC 179 discuss... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: Please take RFC 179 discuss... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Please take RFC 179 discuss... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions... John Porter
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to manipu... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to manipu... Eric Roode
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to m... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to manipu... Eric Roode