May 26, 2010
10:07 a.m.
On May 26, 2010, at 11:58 51AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
hi richard
WTF?!
If you have a real argument we are really open to discussion.
These are the only reasons? I think that they are sufficient +1
Because we could have and:or: or:and: and:and:or: and a couple of others in that case.
No we could not :) Because of ambiguity: a and: (b or: c) is not the same as (a and: b) or: c Cheers, Henry