| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:18:31 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200 |
| 5 |
> > If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution which |
| 6 |
> > will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' and 'we can |
| 7 |
> > fix it in an awful way in next 10 years'. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> EAPI 5 doesn't appear to be 10 years off. And there are several good |
| 10 |
> solutions, all of which have been discussed previously. The best is to |
| 11 |
> write smaller, less convoluted eclasses that don't mix functionality |
| 12 |
> and overriding default functions. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And what can I do about it? People want it this way. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > > Or to put it another way, the point of having a spec is not to |
| 17 |
> > > give you something to argue about every time it is brought up. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > You know, good specs come with a thing called 'rationale' for |
| 20 |
> > various points. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> You're welcome to write it. You seem to have lots of free time. I'd |
| 23 |
> even be happy to point you in the direction of all the previous |
| 24 |
> discussions of this kind of thing, if you have difficulty finding |
| 25 |
> them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rationale should be written by the person writing the spec, don't you |
| 28 |
know? It's your words, so your rationale. Your duty. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I can give my rationale for my ideas. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Best regards, |
| 34 |
Michał Górny |
Archives