From: G. James Berigan (usefor@war-of-the-worlds.org)
Date: Wed Nov 03 1999 - 14:40:22 CST
Brad Templeton <brad@main.templetons.com> wrote:
> Should not mvgroup, like all new features, be extensible in the
> standard way? There is no excuse for designing new features that are
> not extensible, not in the 90s.
What would need to be done to it? I've been gone for too long I guess.
How are we making things extensible?