2008/8/5 Will Hawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 2008/7/29 Will Hawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> I think it might be better if process() called repeat(1) only if >>> repeat() had not been called already, so you could call repeat() and >>> modify the generated elements prior to calling process(). I've tested >>> this briefly and it doesn't appear to have any unwanted side effects. > > Warnocked! :-) > > Does no-one object to me checking this change in then?
Sorry - so many mails, so little time! Yes, that sounds good - please go ahead and fix it. I think we might need to bring in a "commit if no objections" rule, so that contributions aren't lost. Okay, we'll try that - if there's no objections within 7 days - take that as an implicit "go ahead". That time period should be extended, though, if I mention to the list that I'm on holiday. btw - I'm on holiday this week (really) and I'm at yapc-eu next week, so I don't know how much I'll be able to get online. For anything already posted to the list which I haven't gotten round to responding to yet - please feel free to resend after next week - and the 7 day rule will apply. Cheers, Carl _______________________________________________ HTML-FormFu mailing list HTML-FormFu@lists.scsys.co.uk http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/html-formfu
