On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 06:39:07AM +0200, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>
> Thanks. But now that we have it, I have a hard time determining which
> should be the canonical name. I'm biased towards "Armor" because I
> know the word from PGP. We need a decision which one is canonical
> because I will no
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:51:19 -0800, Vipul Ved Prakash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Cute. One remark: American English speakers use 'armor', not
>> 'armour'. That is also the term used by the PGP package. So I think it
>> is wise to provide both armor and armour (and un&) functions.
>
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 03:25:45PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> [Quoting Vipul Ved Prakash, on March 17 2001, 23:48, in "Suggestion for an ap"]
> > A while ago I sent you a mail asking you if Convert::ASCII::Armour was
> > appropriate name for a module that converts binary octets to ASCII
> > arm
[Quoting Vipul Ved Prakash, on March 17 2001, 23:48, in "Suggestion for an ap"]
> A while ago I sent you a mail asking you if Convert::ASCII::Armour was
> appropriate name for a module that converts binary octets to ASCII
> armoured data.
Cute. One remark: American English speakers use 'armor', n
Hi,
A while ago I sent you a mail asking you if Convert::ASCII::Armour was
appropriate name for a module that converts binary octets to ASCII
armoured data. The module is ready for publication and I was wondering if
I should go ahead and put it up on CPAN. If you have suggestions toward a
better
