At 11:32 AM 8/25/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote: >Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Read my lips: GOOD THING. > >Do we have an RFC yet that proposes Perl to be easier parsable? We have one proposing nearly the opposite: RFC 28. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit ... John Porter
- New match and subst replacements f... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replacemen... Randy J. Ray
- Re: New match and subst replacemen... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replacemen... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches,... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, eve... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even with ?... Damian Conway
- RE: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even with ??... Fisher Mark