Open jamesmckinna opened 2 months ago
I definitely think so. Breaking as it might be.
One way to tackle breaking
would be to have an interim v2.2-badged PR which introduces, say, _Respects²_
, and deprecates _Respects₂_
in its favour, ahead of agreeing a/the 'right' name (possibly the original? I'm not thrilled by it...) for v3.0?
The definition:
has
_Respectsʳ_
_Respectsˡ_
This seems a like bug (cognitive dissonance at the very least). Worth fixing?