Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ?

iain truskett noted:
> Anyway: rfc5 claims to be frozen so this is probably a useless
> discussion anyway.

Hmmm.... yes, there is that litle detail. So where was all this insightful
discussion two weeks ago!!?? Hmmm??!!!

Actually I might ask the Librarian for some flexibility on this if anyone
can first make the case that they have a comment to add that isn't already
represented in the current RFC5.

--Michael

• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Tom Christiansen
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Michael Mathews
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Dave Storrs
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by JVromans
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by David L. Nicol
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Michael Mathews
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by JVromans
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Michael Mathews
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Nick Ing-Simmons
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by iain truskett
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by JVromans
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by iain truskett
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Damien Neil
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by iain truskett
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Damien Neil
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by JVromans
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by iain truskett
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Michael Mathews
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Michael Mathews
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Michael Mathews
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Dave Storrs
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by iain truskett
• Re: why not just use C /* ... */ ? by Tom Christiansen
• why not just use C /* ... */ ? by David L. Nicol