> I agree completely with these points, which is why I'd rather have seen
> it dealt with (one way or t'other) in 7.2. But we appear to have a lot
> of people who don't think it's been discussed adequately in
> $PREFERRED_FORUM ... and the one thing I *really* don't want is to hold
> up 7.2 beta anymore for this issue. Let's stuff this worm back in the
> can and get on with it.
Frankly, I'd be happy to consider this a bug fix either way. The timing
is compatible with 7.2, and I'm happy that Bruce is bringing this to
resolution. My point was simply that some discussion on -hackers is
appropriate, and that others on -hackers who might have a stake in this
should be in on the discussion.
fwiw, I don't have a strong opinion about *which* path is taken to fix
the problem. But the old implementation is the worst of all worlds, and
the replacement syntax which is already in the code is a better choice.
- Thomas