Karl Pflästerer <sigurd@12move.de> writes:

On 13 Aug 2003, Simon Josefsson <- jas@extundo.com wrote:
>  
> >  sigurd@12move.de (Karl Pflästerer) writes:
>  
> > >  On 11 Aug 2003, Karl Pflästerer <- sigurd@12move.de wrote:
>  
> > >  [a lot]
>  
> > >  So I see there is absolutely no interest in such a functionality.
>  
> >  What I'm missing is a reason NOT to install it.  Is there any?
> >  It's
>  
>  IMO (well I'm a bit biased) there is none.
  
> >  not backwards compatible in any way, is it?  I vote for installing
> >  it
>  
>  You mean backwards incompatible?  Or do we mean the same?  There is
>  (there should be) absolutely no problem.  It's only a new feature but
>  changes nothing in the meaning of existing rules.
>  
> >  (when the, err, feature heat is over).  I also prefer "not" as the
> >  mnemonic; I don't recall seeing !  or ~ used as logical negation in
> >  elisp related situations.
>  
>  Fine.  It's only a matter of tase.  So at the moment we have 2 votes
>  for `not' (Reiner's and yours).  I also prefer `not' but from me only
>  a half vote :-)

Do you need more votes ?? :) If yes, take mine. BTW this patch is
awesome and I definetely recommend people to give it a try :p

Now my rules are a bit cleaner :p

zeDek
-- 
"Sie werden lachen, ich kann überhaupt nicht lesen."
		Revisionist Manfred Koch erlaeutert die Probleme der
		Ewiggestrigen in dsp*