On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Richter wrote: > Neil, > > Basicly I agree to your argumentation. The point why it is like it is, > is that it should be the same as in 1.3 . The difference is the > different handling of spaces, which is not part of the hidden command, > but is due to the new parser. > > The point is that changing it, might break applications that depends > on the current behaviour (not sure if such applications really > exists). My plan was to release final 2.0 next weekend and I don't > know if it is a good idea to change something like this at this point. > On the other side, if we want to change it, it needs to be done right > now.
I would vote to change it. I do not see the value in having hidden ignore updates to %fdat; I also think it's pretty natural to put the spaces in. Current 2.0rc behavior violates the surprise principle, IMHO. I could see puting in a backwards compatability option, for those people who have made use of this bug. (IMHO, the real bug was the [$hidden$] behavior, not the [$ hidden $] behavior.) Disclaimer: In all of my pages, I've only used hidden once, and that invocation uses explicit arguments. As such, I may not correctly userstand how people would normally think implicit arguments work. Ed --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
