40aab719df
in= was problimatic in two ways. First, it referred to a remote by name, but preferred content expressions can be evaluated elsewhere, where that remote doesn't exist, or a different remote has the same name. This name lookup code could error out at runtime. Secondly, in= seemed pretty useless. in=here did not cause content to be gotten, but it did let present content be dropped. present is more useful, although "not present" is unstable and should be avoided. |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
changelog | ||
compat | ||
control | ||
copyright | ||
doc-base | ||
NEWS | ||
rules |