On Thursday 08 February 2007, Ned Ludd wrote: > Please read over what's been talked about elsewhere in this thread. He > is not trying to break existing functionality at all. Only extend it to > be posix aware (additionally)
erm, no ... our code is a superset of POSIX, so technically yes he is breaking existing functionality and doing the quite opposite of extending -mike
pgplxEo0WIAJC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
