 | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | (...) Well this was one of the reasons behind my original suggestion. (This thread sure did take off while I was away skiing this weekend.) I suggested that a new meta command group be made today, albeit before the creation of a standards body, so (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) I disagree. Let's stick with the current method of meta-commands until a standards body officially determines the syntax of future generation commands. No hold on anything, innovation can continue (just in the same disorganized fashion it (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | (...) That's fine also. I was only offering a possible way to avoid taking even more useful options away from the standards commitee. I don't think it would be too much to ask that new commands all be prefixed with 'UNOFF' or 'UNOFFICIAL'. It of (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) Understood. I think we need to focus on creating legitimacy for making decisions on standards before actually making decisions on standards. ;-) (...) That's a resonable request. Here's some thoughts -- I think the standards body will be (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
