On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:24:32PM -0700, Jerry Hedden wrote: > Yves (demerphq) commented: > > That's the problem with having default stringification behaviour. > > Unless you explicitly document the stringification behaviour as > > being open to change people are allowed to assume it wont and use > > the default behaviour. > > Agreed, but does that mean this is really such a big deal that a slight > potential for imcompatibility is grounds for barring any improvements?
I do not wish the *default* behaviour of any part of a maintenance release to be incompatible (with the exception of bug fixes). Sorry. I failed to specify the word "default" before. I do not know what crazy things people have done in code I cannot see. But people are creative in strange ways, and I cause them enough trouble already by incorporating changes with unintended behaviour changes (ie things that can be considered to be new bugs). Nicholas Clark
