Client API pedantism

[Alexandros Frantzis]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:30:48PM +1200, Robert Ancell wrote:
> On 08/04/13 15:16, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'd go as far as proposing a change to the above function
> > any time soon. But it's worth keeping consistency in mind for future
> > API additions.
> >
> > - Daniel
> >
> I say it's not something that needs to fixed immediately, but can be
> migrated over before 1.0.
> 
> --Robert

I would say better sooner than later... The more we wait, the more
instances of the unwanted function name we will have, both in our code
and in foreign code, and the more difficult it will be for us to amend
them all.

Thanks,
Alexandros