Karl, > I strongly disagree about "should". In fact, I strongly request that > the syntax of language.dat *not* change unless it absolutely has to.
Don't worry. It won't. > In any case, if there is some need to invent new syntax for new features > (nothing in your list seemed like it needed such?), please please please > keep the old syntax working. Of course. This is the very reason I didn't touch it. And even if a new way to load patterns is devised, the old way will be still available (backward compatibility is essential to me). Javier
