[Aahz]
> ...
> I am not talking about some abstract general case; it looks to me that in
> this specific case backward compatibility isn't an issue, and I still
> have not seen any explanation for why I'm wrong.
Well, give us a reason to believe you're right <wink>. Specific cases can't
be decided on "general principles" -- the only way to know what vim's needs
actually are is to study its source code. Have you done that? I haven't.
