On 4 December 2012 14:39, Thien-Thi Nguyen <t...@gnuvola.org> wrote: > () Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> > () Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:34:52 +0800 > > patch that handles [...] *unspecified* > > Can ‘unspecified?’ (the procedure) be used? I seem to recall people > wanting to avoid using ‘*unspecified*’ (the unique object) a while back.
Could do. Though the existing code uses *unspecified*, and changing would be unrelated to the purpose of this patch.
