| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:04:11 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Steven J Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't |
| 7 |
>> > already been explained, I say how to fix it. |
| 8 |
>> Oh? Where on Earth did you do that in this thread? All you've said so |
| 9 |
>> far is that preserve-libs is "an awful hack that doesn't really work, |
| 10 |
>> is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in subtle |
| 11 |
>> ways." No reasoning given whatsoever. Nor any indication of how to |
| 12 |
>> fix anything. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> preserve-libs has been discussed to death previously and elsewhere. The |
| 15 |
> changes needed to implement it correctly were included in the original |
| 16 |
> EAPI 3, but were dropped due to lack of Portage implementation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The usual protocol when you're making assertions like that, if it's already |
| 19 |
been discussed, is to provide a url or two to prior discussion. Or at least |
| 20 |
state which feature(set) it is you think which does that. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
After lots of reading, and recent discussion, you appear to believe that |
| 23 |
SLOT operators are the "conceptually sound" method of choice that doesn't |
| 24 |
"break things in subtle ways". Is that correct? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> There's no need to repeat the whole discussion here. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
No, just provide evidence and reasoning for any assertions you make, |
| 29 |
especially when you are criticising someone else's work. You don't have to |
| 30 |
repeat yourself: just link to the issues, if you can't summarise them |
| 31 |
yourself. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives