On 27/11/2007, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/25/07, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What you are suggesting is a NEW approach that has, as part of the > design, > > the explicit intent to break compatibility. > > I'm not sure how else to say this, but there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in > what I've proposed that would break backwards compatibility. I'm > saying this SO EMPHATICALLY because it's the WHOLE POINT of the > proposal.
You are, however, ABSOLUTELY going to break forwards compatibility. You were right, I did mean forwards. And this is just as bad. Adam K
