Re: RFC 48 (v2) Objects should have builtin stringifying

[Nathan Torkington]

Dan Sugalski writes:
> Is this an update to the original RFC 48 with a new title? Or is it a new 
> RFC mis-numbered?

Actually, it's an update to 49 with a slightly different title, so the
answer to both of your questions is "yes".  The 48/49 confusion has
been cleared up in the archive.

Nat