Re: re: Flow integration

> > Why not leave Stream and introduce a FlowStream (or FlwStream, whatever)?
>
> 	Because, in my experience, people tend to actually test things more
> when the *old* stuff gets the name changes.

It sounds like you're saying "because if I change the names, it forces
people to make sure their stuff works with Flow".

That's a really good way of making sure Flow never gets adopted.
Personally, I'd love to use it, but it's not gonna happen (or not anytime
soon) if it means porting all my existing code to it.  On the other hand,
if Flow can live happily side by side with the current streams, and I can,
*without* any porting effort, have new code that uses Flow in the same
image as old code that doesn't, I'm likely to actually use Flow - and it's
only by getting used that Flow will get tested at all.