Hi,
Ahh, good. I didn't consider that use-case, and it's evil indeed. Thank you
for pointing that out. Option 2 seems better as you suggested.
Yoav
--- Jan Luehe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Yoav,
>
> Yoav Shapira wrote On 10/12/05 19:38,:
> > Hi,
> > I don't want to chop off any parts of
Hi Yoav,
Yoav Shapira wrote On 10/12/05 19:38,:
> Hi,
> I don't want to chop off any parts of your email because it nicely establishes
> the context for the question, so I'll leave it all below.
Thanks!
> It's not obvious to me that option #1 is not acceptable. It raises the bar on
> the includ
Hi,
I don't want to chop off any parts of your email because it nicely establishes
the context for the question, so I'll leave it all below.
It's not obvious to me that option #1 is not acceptable. It raises the bar on
the includer, perhaps, but it's not obviously unacceptable. Am I missing some
