> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Well, that can surely break BC Peter if one used to cast a TaskDef into a > >Definer, no? Sure, it's not sensible code, but it's not 100% BC. All the > >old methods might still be there, so it's only 99.999% BC, which is fine > >by me ;-) I'm just neat picking here. --DD > One can still cast a TaskDef to a Definer. > > 1.6.0 Taskdef -> Typedef -> Definer > 1.5 Taskdef -> Definer
I stand corrected Peter ;-) I thought Typedef supplanted Definer, rather than being wedged in as you expertly did. Thanks for the precision. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
