On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that > by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be > introduced by adding a new [fish:] key.
Nooo! ;) I said it would look more consistent, than always adding a new way (§$%&€<> or so) to describe or latest enhanced dependency atom. Carsten
pgpRoB1lv8bPN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
