On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:01:58AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > James was directly involved in getting the current form to happen;
> > the need for change was a shock to the rest of us, not James or Joey.
> Okay "shock" may be the wrong word, but for sure he thinks the current
> process is w
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:16:59PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I completely disagree that the personal preference of a programming
> language should dictate the technical means we should choose. I'm
> really happy that James does not prefer say PL/I and we would be forced
> to clone an existing
Antony Towns wrote:
> You've seen my comments on this, and presumably my references to mails
> about James views (both my explanation [0] and his [1]). Doesn't that already
> show that there're others besides James who judge similarly, and that
> James has shared his knowledge?
If there are others
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 03:22:35PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:01:58AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > James was directly involved in getting the current form to happen;
> > > the need for change was a shock to the rest of us, not James or Joey.
> > Okay "shock" m
4 matches
Mail list logo
