RE: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"

[Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxx]

 >> Would you implement a feature as questionable as the CF-spec, with only 5
out of 50 replies? Interesting.

That is neither what I said nor what I meant! There are a number of things I
would like to have seen before a CF spec, but I would say from most of the
comments I've seen here and elsewhere that at least a simple majority are in
favor. Let's see what else we get in this release.

My comment related to Hans' remark "and only received about 2-3 votes" - my
point was that since I had received 5+ votes in favor that my numbers obviously
weren't in the totals.

I also thought it interesting that even though I told people that it would cost
them their whole $100 and possibly reduce the content of a subsequent release
that 5 out of 50 (actually I think it was more than that but I was being
conservative) _still_ thought it worth the "money" and several wrote in that
that they would have chosen this option if it had been a little cheaper.

PS. I told you that one day you and Paul Conte would agree on something <grin>


+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---END