Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > Ed Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >There are many logical reasons for and against the RFC's here, but saying > >"it looks like c so it doesn't make it for me" is a weak argument at best. > > I don't think anyone made that argument - they have all been > "I hate that in ..." type comments. You forget... There have been numerous cases of people saying things like "that's what Python [or Java] calls those functions, so we should call them something else." -- John Porter
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like ... Jeremy Howard
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look l... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like vari... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like ... Steve Simmons
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look l... Larry Wall
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like variables Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like variables James Mastros
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like variables Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like variables Ed Mills
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like variable... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like vari... John Porter
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like ... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like variable... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like vari... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 83 (v1) Make constants look like ... Jeremy Howard