gypsy wrote: > > Thomas Graf wrote: > > > > > Would you guys like to see esfq included in mainline? > > YES!! > > gypsy Thomas, Let me rephrase that. I can't think of any reason that SFQ should be maintained without the E <grin>. It makes very little sense to hard code parameters that the user might wish or need to supply. That's the reason for ESFQ. When no parameters are given, it _is_ SFQ; when there are parameters it complies with ones wishes. Name it what you like, but SFQ desperately needs to accept paramters, and ESFQ should be the only SFQ. gypsy _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
