| 1 |
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:12:13 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 +0000 (UTC) |
| 5 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully |
| 7 |
> > look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and |
| 8 |
> > (initially) implement it that way, in ordered to root out and get the |
| 9 |
> > bugs in the spec fixed. That said... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I highly doubt the person implementing the code for Paludis was doing |
| 12 |
> it in a contrarian way. As far as I can see, he simply implemented what |
| 13 |
> the spec says. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Then the person implementing the code for Paludis is either a monkey or a |
| 16 |
robot*. Anyone capable of reasoning could puzzle out the implications of not |
| 17 |
allowing user-given options to override the defaults. Obviously you can write |
| 18 |
code that follows a spec but is still broken or useless. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
*or both (?!) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gcc-porting |
| 25 |
toolchain, wxwidgets |
| 26 |
@ gentoo.org |
Archives