| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:16:36 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Bernd Steinhauser wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Wow, impressive. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Actually, you can't be serious... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I am. |
| 10 |
> > GLEP 54 for quite some time now and it works very well. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> adds nothing to -9999 and sets usage as is. |
| 13 |
> > I just don't see any benefit from your proposal, on the contrary |
| 14 |
> > there are issues. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> No. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > And that includes the ordering. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> No. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
GLEP 54 is fine as is. Not one person has expressed approval at your |
| 28 |
current proprosal, and many people from many different viewpoints have |
| 29 |
expressed disapproval. Simplying saying "no" does not make these |
| 30 |
criticisms go away. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 35 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 36 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives