> > I think that's a very lean way to describe a compiler: it creates an
> > .exe file. But I see where you're coming from.
> >
> > IPC is short, so why not?
> IPC is also an acronym for interprocess communication. Might be confusing.
Seems like all the good names are taken...
Cheers!
Reginal
I think that's a very lean way to describe a compiler: it creates an .exe
file. But I see where you're coming from.
IPC is short, so why not?
Reginald
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Muhammad Abubakar
Sent: woensdag 13 april 2005 14:26
T
People,
I know we all have our preference of what to call IronPython(Console) in the
future, which is up to Jim and his team to decide. But could you all stick
to IronPython(Console) for now. The "fepy", "ironpy", "IP" and whatever
references make it hard to follow some discussions. At least, for
n us by MS) it won't cause
any trouble to have both 2.0 and earlier versions on the same machine at the
same time.
At 05:04 PM 4/1/2005, 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 program
> 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?
Cheers!
Reginald
___
users-ironpython.com mailing list
users-ir
n of .NET and I liked
the way that IronPython *was* licensed.
-Original Message-
From: Bob Ippolito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: vrijdag 1 april 2005 6:48
To: Sriram Krishnan
Cc: 'R.R. Sprinkhuizen'; users-ironpython.com@lists.ironpython.com
Subject: Re: [IronPython] Renaming Iron
> Personally, I like ironpy. I too was a little late in
voting ;-)Count me in. I don't like fepy.> I'm happy we're
getting new releases at all, frankly.Me too, but very unhappy that it
needs 2.0. Can't there be a 1.1 and a 2.0
version?Cheers!Reginald
SwitchBL8's
gebazel
___
