>> "Mos" == Mos  <Mos> writes:

   > 2014-11-25 15:42 GMT+01:00 Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>:
   >> Grrr, this breaks backwards[1] compatibility

   > This time I'd call it backward ;-)

   >> Couldn't that have been optional?

   > Well, perhaps yes and I'll think about making it optional, but you
   > took part into the discussion about this change and didn't object :-)


Oops starting Alzheimer? Usually I have the holy principle

Thou shalt not make code which is backward or forward incompatible.

It is even hang over my desk in my office :-D


Anyhow if you say that I did not object, I don't object that :-D