** On Jan 15, Hamish Moffatt scribbled: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 12:00:55AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote: > > So yeah, it would be nice. Except nobody else did it. I'm tired of > > arguing about whether or not it's strictly necessary. There are other > > options, but none of them really work in all cases (or even most cases) > > and come down to mutilating our package's versions to satisfy a problem > > we've known about for a long time now. If nobody else wants to fix it, I > > will (and have already got the the compare code finished..) Now it's time > > to modify the parser, what character do I use? The bang's used by the > > shell, so it's pretty much out. % was suggested, but it has problems too. > > Any others? > > This is a good suggestion. Finding an appropriate character > may be difficult, though. I don't see what the problem is with '%'; It would seem a '@' can be a better choice. No URL-quoting is necessary and looks definitely better. Is it a viable choice? marek -- Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer /* A completely unrelated fortune */ Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing. -- James Thurber
Attachment:
pgpygGzDh2T9a.pgp
Description: PGP signature