| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:37:36 -0500 |
| 2 |
Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > They only ended up nicely documented after people moaned a lot that |
| 4 |
> > they were having a hard time keeping track of EAPIs... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> You can't possibly be suggesting that everyone will be able to keep an |
| 7 |
> ever-increasing number of feature sets in his or her mind, or that |
| 8 |
> changing from a two-level to a one-level EAPI definition will remove |
| 9 |
> the need for documentation going forward, so I'm not sure what you |
| 10 |
> mean by this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's exactly what I mean. Developers can probably just about keep up |
| 13 |
with the two or three EAPIs they'll ever be working with on a regular |
| 14 |
basis, but they probably can't keep up with that if you double it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives