<rant>EML objects are paleolithic</rant>

[Cyrille Chepelov <chepelov calixo net>]

I don't know who wrote the EML object ; while reviewing them to bring them
to the wonderful world of standard properties, I must say I've been baffled
by their contents. They must have been copied from dia 0.82's standard
objects !

To the contributor's discharge, I'd say we have waited way too long before
improving the objects, and when James wrote the StdProp code, we have waited
way too long before fully embracing it (and I have sinned twice in that
area, first by writing lazyprops, second by letting it spread and survive
for more than a year).

A hand in that area (all of UML except class can be converted ; I'm tacking
EML) would be more than welcome. And I'll definitely push for the rejection
of new objects which aren't written in conformance with the newer paradigms
(at least shapes or StdProp, or anything cleaner and more modern).

Classic objects must die.

	-- Cyrille

-- 
Grumpf.