bertrand Gugger wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue.
If my vote , in name of thousands poor hosted people could count.
[X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0)
Michael Wallner wrote:
I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue.
If my vote , in name of thousands poor hosted people could count.
[X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0) what the hell are you t
[ ] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[X] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about?
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 17:15 +0200, Pierre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:02:47 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Wallner) wrote:
>
>
> > I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue.
>
[X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:02:47 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Wallner) wrote:
> I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue.
[X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again
[ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation
[ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking abou
