On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 11:49:31AM +0100, Innes MacKenzie wrote:
> On 4/17/05, Joe Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 10:55:08AM +0100, Innes MacKenzie wrote:
> > > On 4/17/05, Swaroop C H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > &
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 10:55:08AM +0100, Innes MacKenzie wrote:
> On 4/17/05, Swaroop C H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "ipc" is just too cryptic.
>
> What about 'dir', 'cd', 'csc'?
The first two are historical, and it's too late to change them. The
third is just stupid.
> > If the command-li
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:02:03AM -0700, Keith J. Farmer wrote:
> For a compiler, 4 characters is about my limit. After all, it's all
> about my code -- not the tool that is used to transform it into
> something else.
You type the name of the compiler by hand a lot? Wouldn't it be invoked
from
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 02:24:03PM -0800, Michael Spencer wrote:
> Here is the set of built-ins that 2.3.3 has and that fepy 0.7.1 lacks.
> Absence from this list does not mean an object is correctly implemented.
Is this list exhaustive, or only what you've noticed so far?
Joe
_
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 12:04:45AM +0200, R.R. Sprinkhuizen wrote:
>
> > If you liked it better with the old license and old requirements, fork the
> old one.
>
> If I had that kind of programming capabilities, I wouldn't be here whining
> about 2.0, now would I?
So put up some money to have som
