On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:36:57PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:49:30PM -0500, Craig wrote:
> > >is too baroque to be acceptable (or that there is no problem with
> > >{loi} to be solved), but I'll just have to lump it.
> >
> > I don't know what the problem with {loi} is, and when the BPFK appears
> > and we all get a veto I will veto any change to {loi} that doesn't
> > demonstrate that there is one. In fact, I plan to veto any change to
> > the language that doesn't solve a problem which is either obvious or
> > explained in the proposal;
>
> Even if the change is backwards compatible and other people see a
> problem?
The changes people want to loi aren't backward compatible. They
range from complete gadri overhauls, to redefining the meaning of
"lo".
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00394.pgp
Description: PGP signature