Daniel Russel wrote:
> Looks good except I think that sending paches to impdev is not a great
> way to raise changes for discussion. An English description and
> proposed function signatures (if non trivial functions are propsed) is
> probably more useful ((and both patches and English is a bit much)
Exactly - that's what I say, isn't it? Maybe the text is misleading in
some way? I just say "discuss these interfaces on the imp-dev mailing
list" not the implementations. Or perhaps you're referring to a
different part of the text?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle