Hello!
Can anyone comment on the feature requests that I posted ? (It will never be
implemted. Go away you idiot. will also count as a comment...:).
Also please let me know if I can help in implementation details (I write in C
and C++).
Cheers,
Mark
--
Name: Mark Veltzer
Title:
Sorry about the lack of response. Your feature requests are quite
reasonable, but I have no idea of the timeframe when I'll work on them
(they're not a priority for me). Perhaps someone else is interested
in helping implement them.
The things I planned to tackle for a post-1.9 release are
On Monday 22 September 2003 00:20, you wrote:
Sorry about the lack of response. Your feature requests are quite
reasonable, but I have no idea of the timeframe when I'll work on them
(they're not a priority for me). Perhaps someone else is interested
in helping implement them.
The things I
Mark Veltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 22 September 2003 00:20, you wrote:
Sorry about the lack of response. Your feature requests are quite
reasonable, but I have no idea of the timeframe when I'll work on
them (they're not a priority for me). Perhaps someone else is
interested
On Monday 22 September 2003 01:45, you wrote:
Mark Veltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 22 September 2003 00:20, you wrote:
Sorry about the lack of response. Your feature requests are quite
reasonable, but I have no idea of the timeframe when I'll work on
them (they're not a
Mark Veltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In addition I would add a flag that makes the URL method work like
the explicit method and vice versa. This would cover all bases.
The semantics of that flag aren't as obvious as it may seem. For
example, it's completely legal to do this:
wget -r
On Monday 22 September 2003 03:26, you wrote:
Mark Veltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In addition I would add a flag that makes the URL method work like
the explicit method and vice versa. This would cover all bases.
The semantics of that flag aren't as obvious as it may seem. For
example,
