Even though this happened before 1.0 (AFAIK) it would have broken a lot of code, so it makes perfect sense that we should consider this to be a bug and a serious one at that.
- Is "danger" define supposed to also define "... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to also defi... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to also ... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to a... ktamp
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed ... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supp... juancarlospaco
- Re: Is "danger" define ... Araq
- Re: Is "danger" def... Vindaar
- Re: Is "danger" def... dom96
