On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río < jaime.frio@gmail.com> wrote:
There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on the way to go, so leaving
things as they are and have been seems the wisest choice for now, thanks for all the feedback. I will work with Greg on documenting the status quo properly. Ugh. Be careful in documenting the way things currently work. No one intended for it to work that way! No one should rely on high<low being allowed in the future. I'm tempted to just make a PR adding the deprecation lack-of-consensus-be-damned. It is currently documented correctly for the way it is supposed to be used, and that is a good thing. Please relegate discussions of the counter-documented behavior to the Notes. -- Robert Kern