On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 06:48:17PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:07:02PM +0000, Mark Skilbeck wrote:
> I was asking for clarification. As long as a new twist on an existing
> feature doesn't break older configurations, that's always a plus.
I see. Yeah, I have been trying to think of a way to implement this cleanly
that isn't going to break BC. My initial thought was to just have the extra
text be defined as the text following the first space: