On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:59:09PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> It's also supposed to have an implementation.
I think those of us who are actually likely to write a single line of code or
more should be concerned with that, thank you.
--
[It is] best to confuse only one issue at a time.
-- K&R
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Piers Cawley
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Nathan Wiger
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
