Matthias Troyer wrote: I'm sorry if that's how it came off. It certainly wasn't directed at you. I crafted the email in response to Dave's request to take another look at it. I resented being pressured into that was my response. I had originally looked at the submission enough to conclude to my satisfaction that implementing your idea didn't require any modification of the core library. At that point, I didn't have a whole heck of a lot to say about it. I reallise that you had the opposite view on this point and that (and I guess you still do) after a little bit of back and forth, I concluded we would just have to agree to disagree. I could live with this. Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough for some people. So I was forced in to invest a lot of effort to demonstrate what to me is an obvious point. Now I know you don't think its obvious or even correct, but we're not going to convince each other so there's no practical alternative to just letting things simmer a while until someone with a fresh perspective can make a case that can convince one of us to change is viewpoint. Veiled threats to fork the library and make my life even more difficult are really way out of line and that's what I was responding to. So, please accept my apology if I was a little too harsh. Robert Ramey