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?