Robert Treat wrote:
>I'm going to be lazy and ask if you can post what the better solution
>that was coming was (or a link to the thread). While I'll grant you that
>the "it's coming" argument is pretty weak after two releases, that fact
>that it may have been a better solution could still hold up.
>
>Robert Treat
>
>
AFAIK it wasn't actually done. It was more of a, "we should do something
different" argument. At one point it was talked about rewriting the
configuration system to allow "include" and other things.
