On Dec 18, 2007 1:06 PM, James Bigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
> >
> > include(Modern) would turn on improvements that are
> > clearly desirable but break backwards compatibility.
> >
> > Heh, I wonder if in some instances the opposite would be needed,
> > include(Ancie
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 9:36 AM, James Bigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also agree that trying to maintain backwards compatibility to the
detriment of the future can become a hinderance. I just had a
collegue who was extreemly frustrated for several hours with why his
buil
On Dec 18, 2007 9:36 AM, James Bigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I also agree that trying to maintain backwards compatibility to the
> detriment of the future can become a hinderance. I just had a
> collegue who was extreemly frustrated for several hours with why his
> build didn't work, only
