Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter

On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 01:30:35PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> What is it that you think this is gaining ?

I think that's not gaining anything, but it's losing a dependency on
Exporter, which is *way* overweight for UNIVERSAL. Sounds like a Good
Thing to me.

-- 
4.2BSD may not be a complete disaster, but it does a good job of emulating one.

• [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Abhijit Menon-Sen
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Jarkko Hietaniemi
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Simon Cozens
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Benjamin Sugars
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Mike Guy
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by barries
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Abhijit Menon-Sen
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Simon Cozens
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr
• Re: [PATCH] UNIVERSAL shouldn't require Exporter by Graham Barr