>>The response I got was that this is probably a needless feature.

>I object to this characterisation of what I said; this boils two
>e-mail messages down into a few words that are not at all indicative
>of the response you got, Moshe.  I said that there had been few if
>any requests; that the implementation would likely be non-trivial; and
>that my recollection was that it had been stated in the past that this
>was not an option.
stuf deleted m.b......
>Nathan

Nathan,
Call it my English, call it my understanding, call it my sensitivity or say I
was tired (I was:-) and perhaps it's all not too important to bother everyone,
but my inner translation to 'there had been few if any requests' and
'it had been stated in the past that this was not an option.' led me to conclude
that it wasn't really a needed feature, hence the term 'needless' which you
indeed never used.
It was, as I said, my understanding and if you or anyone else has been offended
by this, I apologize.
Best,
Moshe