| 1 |
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:46:30 -0600 Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
| > > Could you spell out that exception clause, please? |
| 5 |
| > |
| 6 |
| > It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something |
| 7 |
| > like "Unless you know exactly why the rule is there, understand |
| 8 |
| > fully the implications of breaking it, and know why it's a |
| 9 |
| > good idea in this particular case." |
| 10 |
| > |
| 11 |
| > However, if you're in a position to be invoking that clause, you |
| 12 |
| > should know about it anyway. |
| 13 |
| |
| 14 |
| Can we skip the sekrit rulez crap and just spell it out? Really, how |
| 15 |
| does this help anyone? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It's quite simple. You don't do it unless you are fully aware of the |
| 18 |
consequences. If you have to ask, you aren't fully aware of the |
| 19 |
consequences so you mustn't do it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 23 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 24 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 25 |
Paludis is faster : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=61 |
Archives