| 1 |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:02:57 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The problem is that you're arguing against a proposal that doesn't |
| 4 |
> > exist except in your head. If you'd like to read and understand the |
| 5 |
> > proposal being made, which starts with understanding the bits marked |
| 6 |
> > clearly with stars, and then once you've understood it, rethink and |
| 7 |
> > present any issues you find with that proposal then we might have |
| 8 |
> > something to discuss. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Renaming and/or reordering something doesn't change its implications. |
| 11 |
> It's just 'main disadvantage' vs 'side disadvantage'. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well no. You've been arguing against some mysterious proposal that |
| 14 |
doesn't exist that you think is about replacing lots of variables with |
| 15 |
one variable. That's not what DEPENDENCIES is, and now that you've got |
| 16 |
a proper write-up, you can try reading it, understanding it and then |
| 17 |
seeing if you have any objections to what's actually being proposed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives