Re: style => name?

Subject: Re: style => name?
From: Dom Lachowicz (dominicl@seas.upenn.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 08:35:48 CDT

• sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Randy Kramer: "Re: Testing Update: New Summary, Problem on File Close"
• Previous message: Randy Kramer: "Re: Testing Update: New Summary, Problem on File Close"
• In reply to: Martin Sevior: "Re: style => name?"
• Next in thread: Martin Sevior: "Re: style => name?"
• Next in thread: Randy Kramer: "Re: style => name?"
• Reply: Dom Lachowicz: "Re: style => name?"
• Reply: Martin Sevior: "Re: style => name?"

Quoting Martin Sevior <msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au>:
 

> Dom, you had a lot to with styles, do you have an opinion? I'll do the
> work to revert to the "name"/"style" split if you agree with Paul.

Hi, just back from a weekend away from the internet :)

I agree with Paul. We should:

1) Use 1 consisten naming and code convention
2) Release a new version shortly (Hub suggests calling it 0.9.4 as opposed to
0.9.3-2) with these fixes

Thanks!
Dom

• Next message: Randy Kramer: "Re: Testing Update: New Summary, Problem on File Close"
• Previous message: Randy Kramer: "Re: Testing Update: New Summary, Problem on File Close"
• In reply to: Martin Sevior: "Re: style => name?"
• Next in thread: Martin Sevior: "Re: style => name?"
• Next in thread: Randy Kramer: "Re: style => name?"
• Reply: Dom Lachowicz: "Re: style => name?"
• Reply: Martin Sevior: "Re: style => name?"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 08:35:52 CDT