--- Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> >
> > More seriously, it was an RT, I wanted to hear
> what people think and if
> > there was any problems that I hadn't thought
> about. I will of course
> > cast a vote before commiting anything. We could
> possibly provide some
> > optional back compability mode that puts the
> environment abstraction
> > objects in the object model.
> >
> > But I would suppose most users would be happy to
> get rid of this extra
> > complication.
> >
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not absolutely against
> ditching the abstraction
> (see my last mail in the thread), but I think from
> the response so far,
> there is no big cheering group out there dancing
> around singing "yes,
> that's exactly what we wanted for years". So I
> think, unless there are
> really some more users saying, "yes, please, do
> that" we should simply
> not do it.
> For the versioning, we could for example release a
> 2.2 soon, change the
> environment abstract after that and then release a
> 2.3 later this year.
If I understand Daniel correctly, he wants to change
it because this simplifies his work on the block
implementation. Right?
--
Reinhard
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
