On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:41:05PM -0500, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>There are already more than enough /on's for these types of messages.
>We don't need to make it even more complicated for scripters to keep
>track of what is going on. /on public_other and /on msg_group really
>shouldn't exist if there were any justice in the world.
I actually meant ONE for each nonnum message
>I oppose adding gratuitous /on's that are already covered by other /on's.
>I oppose removing legacy /on's for backwards compatability reasons only.
Ok ok.... let it be...
qMax
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://epicsol.org/mailman/listinfo/list
