Philip M. Gollucci wrote: >> As a more generic solution, this might make sense. On first glance, >> your patch >> looks sane, but I won't have the time to really look at it until Jan >> 15th, so >> if anybody else feels like writing a few tests for this and beat me to >> it... > > Wouldn't that be an API change ?
Yes, I guess so, yet at the same time, I am not sure if there is anything wrong with changing a function from ([foo]) to ([foo],bar); Since that can't possibly break old code. > Agree with the patch and it looks good, but no time to free tuits right > now. I'll get to it when I get back home on Jan 15th then, no biggie. -- Philippe M. Chiasson m/gozer\@(apache|cpan|ectoplasm)\.org/ GPG KeyID : 88C3A5A5 http://gozer.ectoplasm.org/ F9BF E0C2 480E 7680 1AE5 3631 CB32 A107 88C3A5A5
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
