John Porter writes: > Btw, I am way overstating the case, i.e. devil's advocate. > I really don't feel that strongly about it! Please don't do this. It's hard enough shooting down bad ideas that people passionately believe, without having recreational bad ideas to deal with as well. If you think something is good, then argue for it. If you don't, don't. Thanks, Nat
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma) wit... Stephen P. Potter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying c... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifyi... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (string... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... John Porter
- Re: Devils advocacy (Re: RFC 84 ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Devils advocacy (Re: RFC 84 ... John Porter
- Re: Devils advocacy (Re: RFC 84 ... iain truskett
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Kai Henningsen
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Nathan Torkington