skip> I just stumbled upon it again. It seems to me this would have skip> been a good thing to fix in 3.0. Is this something which could skip> change in 3.1 (or be deprecated in 3.1 with deletion in 3.2)? Hmmm... I didn't really mean "deletion". I meant, could a behavior change be implemented in 3.2 with a warning emitted in 3.1? Skip
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