On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:37:04 -0400, Jim Starkey wrote:

>>In our short FB history, controversial changes have been discussed and
>>tested in the list. Incompatible changes with previous versions (where the
>>old versions were considered at fault) were done after general agreement.
>>It's almost impossible that "general" equals "unanimous".
>>
>So, you are arguing that a single keyword on future view definitions is
>too hgih a price to pay to keep thousands of existing production systems
>working? Or are you arguing that an implicit decision once made cannot
>be reviewed?

Thousands? Jim, this behavior is not ever documented!!!!
If it is not documented, don't bother to "keep compatibility".
It's maintenance only creates new trouble and create more
traffic for support lists (as if it is not enoughly crowded).
For me, rip it off.