On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:39:56PM -0400, Ben Winslow wrote: > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 12:34 -0500, Jeremy Nelson wrote: > > I would prefer to just cut this over, but if many people object, I will > > try to device some system where a single on type can have multiple names, > > which automagically get converted to the canonical name. If nobody really > > cares about /on leave enough to want to keep it around, we should ditch it. > > > > Jeremy > > I propose epic5 be fairly gung-ho about backwards-incompatible changes. > I'd hate for epic to become the x86 of IRC clients. ;) > > -- > Ben Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I agree with Ben completely. I am totally in favor of the proposed change as well as future changes that may break backward compatibility. It is my opinion that having EPIC5 be *mostly* compatible with EPIC4 scripts does nothing but cause pain for those of us still actively developing scripts. I feel it would be better if EPIC5 rejected EPIC4 sripts outright so as to avoid users thinking that things work when really there are numerous problems that are not immediately noticeable. Not to mention the fact that sticking with backwards compatibility is holding back a lot of improvements and cool features that could be incorporated into EPIC5. EPIC5 is considered to be a completely separate project; a fork of EPIC4. Therefore, this is the perfect opportunity to break things in the name of advancement. Let's not waste it! EPIC4 works great so there is no reason to move to EPIC5 unless you _want_ change. -- Brian Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> fudd @ EFNet _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://epicsol.org/mailman/listinfo/list
