Joe Orton wrote: > > Gah, just realised I never dealt with this, sorry :( > > Since this is really an attempt to make a new API guarantee, it is > something that can only be done in a minor version bump, and would need > to be done for the other implementations too.
Well, I'm a little torn. I don't mind offering the 'feature' of not wasting the memory on failure (now that I know it isn't consistent across platforms already). You are half right though - They can't test for 1.2 for example and expect the API to behave one way or the other. In 1.3 of course, we can add 'promises' on that behavior.
