At 01:03 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote: > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00025.html > >Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, except I like '-q' better >than '-z' for aesthetic reasons. > >So... what was the rationale against it? Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask for a statement of the opposing viewpoint... -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nicholas Clark
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nathan Wiger
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nicholas Clark
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko