Dan Connelly wrote:

> But I am sure this will make more sense at 3.2.

That's presuming a 3.2 before a 4.0. I remember a rumor to the
effect that the Pov team was already working on parts of the
4.0 version though I can't remember it's source or time frame.

> Dan
>
> P.S. I would have preferred the jump be made more directly.  There
> is always #version 3.0 to preserve old code.  The current state
> of the syntax seems to lack coherence.

Agreed.

Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message