Mark Mielke writes: | I never suggested that backwards compatibility be sacrificed. I suggest | that the code should eventually be fixed. MajorDomo is one of those tools | that hasn't been touched in years (unless I'm wrong here), and NEEDS | some clean up. Hm, I'm missing some logic here: 1) MajorDomo you've heard of and are familiar with. Therefore, I deduce, you are using it. Thus, it is useful. 2) It hasn't been touched in years (you think). I deduce that it is is operating within acceptable bounds. So, why does it "NEED" some clean up? Ain't broke, don't fix, yadda yadda. This may seem trivial and/or obvious, but is one of the underpinning concepts supporting the backward compatibility police. I'm quite sure I don't fancy the task of maintaining working code: i've got quite enough broken code to keep me amused. Mx.Thread Previous | Thread Next