| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:30:25 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:18:31 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > > If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution |
| 7 |
> > > which will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' |
| 8 |
> > > and 'we can fix it in an awful way in next 10 years'. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > EAPI 5 doesn't appear to be 10 years off. And there are several good |
| 11 |
> > solutions, all of which have been discussed previously. The best is |
| 12 |
> > to write smaller, less convoluted eclasses that don't mix |
| 13 |
> > functionality and overriding default functions. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And what can I do about it? People want it this way. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You can help people write smaller, less convoluted eclasses that don't |
| 18 |
mix functionality and overriding default functions. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Rationale should be written by the person writing the spec, don't you |
| 21 |
> know? It's your words, so your rationale. Your duty. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The general impression I get is that most people would rather we spent |
| 24 |
time on functionality and accuracy rather than history. Most people are |
| 25 |
content with "the Council says so" as the rationale, and are happy to |
| 26 |
restrict their queries to polite requests for historical discussion on |
| 27 |
interesting topics every now and again (and those that aren't also seem |
| 28 |
intent upon disagreeing with everything else in the spec anyway). You |
| 29 |
are of course welcome to propose to the Council that they require |
| 30 |
detailed historical background for every part of the spec, and then do |
| 31 |
your duty in writing it up if they agree. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives