| 1 |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:07:54 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:02:57 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > The problem is that you're arguing against a proposal that doesn't |
| 7 |
> > > exist except in your head. If you'd like to read and understand |
| 8 |
> > > the proposal being made, which starts with understanding the bits |
| 9 |
> > > marked clearly with stars, and then once you've understood it, |
| 10 |
> > > rethink and present any issues you find with that proposal then |
| 11 |
> > > we might have something to discuss. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Renaming and/or reordering something doesn't change its |
| 14 |
> > implications. It's just 'main disadvantage' vs 'side disadvantage'. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Well no. You've been arguing against some mysterious proposal that |
| 17 |
> doesn't exist that you think is about replacing lots of variables with |
| 18 |
> one variable. That's not what DEPENDENCIES is, and now that you've got |
| 19 |
> a proper write-up, you can try reading it, understanding it and then |
| 20 |
> seeing if you have any objections to what's actually being proposed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ah, I forgot how the goals change *everything*. Because it's good to |
| 23 |
kill hundreds of people for the good reasons. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Michał Górny |
Archives