Re: [s-b] C Nomic

0x44 on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:28:11 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] C Nomic

To: B-Nomic Business <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-b] C Nomic
From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:26:09 -0500
In-reply-to: <44e5a2650810101248u1a17e3b8ndd486861acebd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <48EBD2EE.7000908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dbedf4da0810071452v38251457n43503f4e0a261bd4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650810100921r669d8ee0k3cc16500095941ca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <285c99840810101240p5a3c209fpfbc8c51f96903073@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650810101248u1a17e3b8ndd486861acebd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)

Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> Thank you very much. I guess you're right about the current proposals on C. I do think that 493 and 494 become redundant if they pass and the oracularity is then pondered, though.
>   
I claim the answer to Consultation 131 is CONSISTENT. Very nice work 
with handling the B/C Game Object split.

-- 
--
0x44;

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business

References:
- [s-b] C Nomic
  - From: Jay Campbell
- Re: [s-b] C Nomic
  - From: Tyler
- Re: [s-b] C Nomic
  - From: Jamie Dallaire
- Re: [s-b] C Nomic
  - From: Charles Schaefer
- Re: [s-b] C Nomic
  - From: Jamie Dallaire

Prev by Date: Re: [s-b] Register
Next by Date: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Wrap up BlackCorp Motions
Previous by thread: Re: [s-b] C Nomic
Next by thread: Re: [s-b] [s-d] C Nomic
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread