At 01:56 PM 7/29/02 +0200, Arthur Bergman wrote:
>>At 10:44 AM 7/29/02 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>>>"Thread::Needs" isn't a very descriptive name - it's too general.
>>>Something like "Thread::NeedsModules" would be better.
>>Hmmm... if that's the only problem you have with it, I'm glad... ;-)
>I
On måndag, juli 29, 2002, at 12:50 , Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
>
> At 10:44 AM 7/29/02 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> "Thread::Needs" isn't a very descriptive name - it's too general.
>> Something like "Thread::NeedsModules" would be better.
>
> Hmmm... if that's the only problem you have with it,
At 10:44 AM 7/29/02 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>"Thread::Needs" isn't a very descriptive name - it's too general.
>Something like "Thread::NeedsModules" would be better.
Hmmm... if that's the only problem you have with it, I'm glad... ;-)
I was considering something like this, but thought the huf
"Thread::Needs" isn't a very descriptive name - it's too general.
Something like "Thread::NeedsModules" would be better.
Tim.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:51:51AM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> In the category "really sick, but potentially really useful" modules, I
> would like to draw your
