I'm not aware of deliberate attempts to try to change the powers to prorogue. The closest one can come to it is in New Zealand, where they've simply abandoned the notion of sessions, and recent Parliaments have one session for the whole Parliament.
To the extent that there's been discussion of it, it has been questioning the value of proroguing at all. One of the big concerns is how parliamentary business gets lost; it becomes much less efficient to have to restart or pick and choose the business that is carried over.
For the most part, it simply has not been an issue in most parliaments. The only example I'm aware of, in a modern post-World War II parliament where a prorogation occurred in circumstances similar to those of 2008, occurred in Sri Lanka--in 2001, I believe--where there was an impending confidence motion that the government was set to lose and the House was prorogued.
But in the thriving democracies, this has simply never been used that way. The power of prorogation has not been a political issue so there hasn't been an attempt to try to regulate it. We're discussing it in Canada because there were these controversial examples and the question has arisen; we can perhaps live with the examples that have occurred, but there may be different circumstances in the future that we want to try to avoid. So we were essentially carving fresh ground here.