Peter Scott wrote: > >Only one of them needs to be right. As long as one is right, > >there is no problem. > > Right, I was just pointing out that it's harder for people to divine which > one we picked without recourse to the documentation. Yes; unfortunately, this problem exists generally, especially wrt Perl. :-/ -- John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Tony Olekshy
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Chaim Frenkel
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Graham Barr
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Piers Cawley
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw" John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw&quo... Peter Scott
- Re: English language basis for "throw... John Porter
- Re: English language basis for "throw" David L. Nicol