Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
As a more generic solution, this might make sense. On first glance,
your patch
looks sane, but I won't have the time to really look at it until Jan
15th, so
if anybody else feels like writing a few tests for this and beat me to
it...
Wouldn't that be an API change ?
Yes, I guess so, yet at the same time, I am not sure if there is anything
wrong with changing a function from
([foo]) to ([foo],bar);
Since that can't possibly break old code.
API changes within the same generation of the product are fine as long as
they are backward-compatible (which seems to be the case).
--
_____________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://stason.org/
MailChannels: Assured Messaging(TM) http://mailchannels.com/
The "Practical mod_perl" book http://modperlbook.org/
http://perl.apache.org/ http://perl.org/ http://logilune.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
