Akim Demaille wrote:
> OK, I'll submit another scenario to you.
[...]
oh yes, I know that story. It happens again and again.
And I agree that at some point you need a rupture to rewrite
the tool on a more robust ground. I have no problems with the
fact that you did break backward compatibility.
But I have a problem with this fact nowhere explained, as in
'well, users will find out if their code doesn't work any more',
not to speak of 'upgrading: how to do it with the new API'.
That said, I do appreciate that you cleaned up the code, and I
do find the tool very useful (if only because there are no better
tools for the job available).
Take care,
Stefan
