On 2015-01-16, at 16:05, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16/01/15 14:55, james anderson wrote: >> as expected - so long as one does not change their approach to argument >> order… > > Is there a place where ARQ does? It's not intended AFAIK.
the are already some, for which our signature differs from arq’s, but that is not the issue. that is no different than that some of our operator names are not an exact match to arq’s. it would become an issue for us to track if arq were to change its convention between version. best regards, from berlin --- james anderson | [email protected] | http://dydra.com
