From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-65689-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26464 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 20:59:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26451 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 20:59:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 20:59:43 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id A413BF2E1A; Sat,  4 Jan 2003 15:59:31 -0500 (EST)
To: dewar@gnat.com, gmariani@chaincast.com
Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Message-Id: <20030104205931.A413BF2E1A@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:13:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2

By the way, I continue to think that language discussions on new features
are dubious on this list, and if that is a more general consensus I would
be very happy to see the whole discussion disappear).