On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:45 +0200, "Steffen Mueller" <nj88ud...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > Hans Dieter Pearcey wrote: > > Excerpts from David Golden's message of Fri Oct 09 07:53:50 -0400 2009: > >> 26. Specify a DLSIP resource > >> > >> Proposal: > >> > >> DLSIP codes should be specified in META.* as a resource. > > > > My impression of DLSIP is that it's nearly as unused as the modules list. > > Is > > this inaccurate? > > I don't think so. Hence: -1 > > Steffen
Yowch! I agree with one thing. The module list needs murdered. That does not mean that either the DLSIP code, or an expanded version of the information provided by same, needs to die with it (because the module list is the only official way of declaring the DLSIP code at present) I made this proposal as a "minimum-change" way of declaring the DLSIP code for the module. Maybe what I should have done instead is proposed additional enumeration keys for the L, S, and I parts of it. (D and P are covered by other proposals.) Too late now? --Curtis -- Curtis Jewell swords...@csjewell.fastmail.us %DCL-E-MEM-BAD, bad memory -VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears [I use PC-Alpine, which deliberately does not display colors and pictures in HTML mail]
