On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Michael Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com> wrote: > That could be. I don't know what Doug wrote except that I knew he mentioned > he updated the docs on it. >
No worries. Can you make an issue and a patch on how you think we should reword the section? We can be stronger in our wording around reducers (but not preclude their use). > I also think you may read a bit more in to my posts that I intend. ;-) > I don't think I am the only one guilty of this over-reading. Thats why I was making a suggestion. (Eran, sorry for hijacking your thread). Good stuff, St.Ack
