Diane Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not trying to re-open this debate, honestly,
No problem with that. > but I just have to say that I find it interesting that you think > heading towards something like "configure" is desirable, just to > avoid having a test-for-value. Personally, I find "configure" to be > one of the yuckiest mangled mess of spaghetti-ed crud I've ever run > into (and I've run into a considerable amount of mangled crud over > the years, so that's saying quite a lot). I think we are talking about to separate things here. What I'd like to see is a tool that fills the needs configure does, I've never said I wanted to inherit the "yucky" implementation. Stefan
