On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 02:08 , Curry Kenworthy wrote: > > >> What you MUST have is a solution to your interface requirement. Let us >> then find out if that solution entails particular programming >> features, rather than working the other way around. If it does, your >> argument to retain those features has more force, and Scott will have >> a clearer idea on an adequate implementation. > > Kind of like, why should I retain my hammer, because hey, I can pound > nails > with the handle of my screwdriver too if I try hard enough? Only if I > fail > in that should I request that the hammer be preserved? :-)
Curry That is not in any respect what I said or implied. In fact, you go on to render an extensive case for the feasibility of polling, as suggested by Scott, which approach meets that portion of my post which you quoted above. The rest of my post sought information on which to make these analyses. Please do not presume opposition where none was stated .... and only a day after Jeanne asked us to be nice :-) regards David _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
