On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 05:43:08PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >IMHO trading six RFCs for two will greatly improve the chance of passing.
>
> As I've said before, I don't think there's a competition here.
My remark was poorly phrased, sorry. I was trying to say that a single
proposal which is
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:35:06PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 03:30 PM 8/13/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> >Whose RFC deals with this?
> 63, 70, 80, 88 and 96. There would appear to be a groundswell of interest :-)
Well yes, but they represent three authors with (as best I can tell)
pr
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> I'll keep modifying my RFCs with the great feedback and ideas that
> are popping up. If my RFC 63 gets close enough to RFC 88 in this
> process that I see no impact from merging them - as seems to be
> happening - I'll certainly propose to Tony that we merge them as
> co-au
At 10:01 AM 8/14/00 -0400, Steve Simmons wrote:
> 80 - Builtins should permit try/throw/catch as per Java/fatalpm
> style (Peter Scott).
Almost. It's saying that builtin exceptions should be objects with
specific attributes iff a try/throw/catch mechanism is also approved.
>I'd like
This seems like a good idea, to me.
-Corwin
From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>IMHO trading six RFCs for two will greatly improve the chance of passing.
