[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Specifiers
From: |
Richard M Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Specifiers |
Date: |
Sat, 31 May 2008 11:16:21 -0400 |
I think you misunderstood. What is happening is that you're suggesting
to make such combinations even more complex and common, while we already
aren't even able to handle them right in the limited cases that
can currently arise.
Is there a real practical problem with the cases that we
"don't handle right"?
By what standard is the current handling "not right"?
- Specifiers (was: face-remapping patch), (continued)
- Re: Specifiers (was: face-remapping patch), Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29
- Re: Specifiers, David Kastrup, 2008/05/30
- Re: Specifiers, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/30
- Re: Specifiers, David Kastrup, 2008/05/30
- Re: Specifiers, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/30
- Re: Specifiers,
Richard M Stallman <=
- Re: face-remapping patch, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/29
- Re: face-remapping patch, David Kastrup, 2008/05/29
Re: face-remapping patch, Miles Bader, 2008/05/29
Re: face-remapping patch, Chong Yidong, 2008/05/28