On Fri, Apr 05, 2002, Tim Peters wrote: > [Aahz] >> ... >> I am not talking about some abstract general case; it looks to me that in >> this specific case backward compatibility isn't an issue, and I still >> have not seen any explanation for why I'm wrong. > > Well, give us a reason to believe you're right <wink>. Specific cases can't > be decided on "general principles" -- the only way to know what vim's needs > actually are is to study its source code. Have you done that? I haven't. You'll note that I started this exchange by asking why pre-2.0 was a requirement, with none of the responses directly addressing my question. I'm certainly not competent to analyze the code, but I think I can at least ask interesting questions. ;-) -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "There are times when effort is important and necessary, but this should not be taken as any kind of moral imperative." --jdecker
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4