Re: Module submission US_DOD::FSM

2003-06-12 Thread Richard Naugle
At 01:05 AM 6/11/2003 -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote: At 07:56 AM 2003-06-10 -0400, Richard Naugle wrote: >[...]I agree with Doc::US_DOD[...] It just occurred to me to wonder... looking back at your original request for module list inclusion, you said: >[...] Placing Military::STD2167A in the

Re: Module submission US_DOD::FSM

2003-06-10 Thread Richard Naugle
At 02:39 PM 6/6/2003 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 07:18:21PM -0700, William R Ward wrote: > Kurt Starsinic writes: > >On Jun 05, Sean M. Burke wrote: > >> At 06:20 PM 2003-06-05 -0700, William R Ward wrote: > >> >I really hope the admins don't accept this new US_DOD:: top-level >

Re: Module submission Military::STD2167A

2003-06-05 Thread Richard Naugle
Hi Tim At 10:19 AM 6/5/2003 +0100, you wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:34:09AM +0200, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote: I'd suggest: Standard::US_DOD::STD2167A This is an excellent suggestion. I suggest and endorse US_DOD::STD2167A I like your suggestion of US_DOD instead of Military v