| 1 |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:53:50 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:23:16 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:05 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > > These are the rules for a machine. People don't actually read |
| 9 |
> > > > dependencies sequentially. Provide a good algorithm which works |
| 10 |
> > > > from any position. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Read backwards from the current position until you find a label. |
| 13 |
> > > It's the same algorithm you use to find out what the current |
| 14 |
> > > section is when you're reading an article. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > No, it doesn't work that way. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > See: |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > foo? ( |
| 21 |
> > label: |
| 22 |
> > dev-foo/bar |
| 23 |
> > ) |
| 24 |
> > dev-bar/foo <- |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Reading backwards, I find 'label'. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> ...skipping subblocks. Although the case you've given is unlikely to |
| 29 |
> be used in practice, since experience shows that given this feature, |
| 30 |
> developers use it in an easily understood manner. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> > > > shall we repeat all the disadvantages which you love to forgot |
| 33 |
> > > > to mention? |
| 34 |
> > > |
| 35 |
> > > No, please stay out of this until you understand the original |
| 36 |
> > > proposal, and in particular the parts marked with ***. So long as |
| 37 |
> > > you don't understand what we're discussing, I'm afraid any |
| 38 |
> > > contributions you make will simply be shouting and waving. |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > What have parts marked with '***' to do with the disadvantages we |
| 41 |
> > have already proved and which you didn't even bother answering? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> The problem is that you're arguing against a proposal that doesn't |
| 44 |
> exist except in your head. If you'd like to read and understand the |
| 45 |
> proposal being made, which starts with understanding the bits marked |
| 46 |
> clearly with stars, and then once you've understood it, rethink and |
| 47 |
> present any issues you find with that proposal then we might have |
| 48 |
> something to discuss. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Renaming and/or reordering something doesn't change its implications. |
| 51 |
It's just 'main disadvantage' vs 'side disadvantage'. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Best regards, |
| 55 |
Michał Górny |
Archives