On 4/9/2010 9:58 PM, Colin Putney wrote:
>
> Well, compatibility is good, so I'd be less opposed to a single "strictly for compatibility" method. But is there really a need for this? Are there packages that rely in this? If there aren't, why invite them to do so?

Fair enough. I was thinking the issue would be less controversial. We'll 
leave it for now and see what happens.

Cheers,
   - Andreas