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 to
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
build
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(Ancient) ! :-)
