[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > John Porter wrote: > > > > we would only implement changes that add something desirable. > > How does removing time() add something desirable? I'm not motivated to give an answer to that, because I'm not arguing in favor of removing time(). -- John Porter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Ken Fox
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? John Porter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Simon Cozens
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? John Porter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Simon Cozens
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Nicholas Clark
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? David Grove
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? John Porter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Simon Cozens
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? abigail
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? John Porter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? James Mastros
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Stephen P. Potter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Bart Lateur
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Nicholas Clark
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Branden
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Simon Cozens
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Andreas J. Koenig
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Casey R. Tweten
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Andy Dougherty
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? abigail