Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing

Nathan Torkington wrote:
> 
> Karl Glazebrook writes:
> > Yes. And for the record I also think the current approach of lets generate
> > ten million RFCs and Uncle Larry knows best is nuts. There are already
> > too many RFCs on this topic alone to grasp coherently.
> 
> Do you have a better suggestion?
> 
> Nat

subgroups should iron out there differences among themselves and come up
with a coherent set of proposals.

the final decision should not be in the hands of one person.

Karl