Rod Adams writes: > Luke Palmer wrote: > >Ummm... yeah, keep a function around if it's not currently implemented. > >I don't think so. > > > I see that as preferable to saying "we had it in 5.10, we dropped it in > 6.0, then added it back in for 6.2."
Umm... your statement isn't quite so shocking when you s/6\.0/6.0 along with everything else/. However, I don't think "added it back" would be true either, because it's very unlikely that it would come back in the same form if it does come back. So consider 6.0 its usage deprecation cycle, so we can redefine its meaning (if we decide to). Luke
