Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

• Subject: Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?)
• From: Asko Kauppi <askok@...>
• Date: 2009年1月15日 00:16:25 +0200

---

Did not understand your reply. I like CLAN. It's "a group of close- knit and interrelated families". Very positive to me. Also, clans are often mentioned in networked games etc. Making Lua modules is a CLANny activity.

-asko
Leo Razoumov kirjoitti 14.1.2009 kello 22:32:

On 2009年1月14日, Joseph Stewart wrote:

Oh my, "CLAN" has some bad connotations in the US!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:18 AM, <askok@dnainternet.net> wrote:

I do like the CLAN name... Wow.
-asko

It is "Klan" with 'K' that has bad connotations.
--Leo--

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?), Petite Abeille

• References:
  • Lua binding for d-bus?, pan shizhu
  • Re: Lua binding for d-bus?, Etan Reisner
  • Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?), Asko Kauppi
  • Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?), Etan Reisner
  • Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?), Michal Kolodziejczyk
  • Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?), askok
  • Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?), Joseph Stewart
  • Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?), Leo Razoumov

• Prev by Date: Lua 5.1.3 with LNUM - access violation when a comment is present
• Next by Date: Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?)
• Next by thread: Re: Why not just ONE of each module?? (Re: Lua binding for d-bus?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread