| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Yes, it did. And you are consistently wasting your and ours time |
| 4 |
> complaining that we're doing illegal stuff without trying to bring |
| 5 |
> even a single solution to it. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Uh, there are plenty of solutions, and they've been discussed every |
| 8 |
time this topic has come up. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Do you even care? Or are you just complaining because you don't have |
| 11 |
> anything useful to do? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I care that people write code that actually works. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution which |
| 16 |
> will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' and 'we can |
| 17 |
> fix it in an awful way in next 10 years'. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
EAPI 5 doesn't appear to be 10 years off. And there are several good |
| 20 |
solutions, all of which have been discussed previously. The best is to |
| 21 |
write smaller, less convoluted eclasses that don't mix functionality and |
| 22 |
overriding default functions. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > Or to put it another way, the point of having a spec is not to give |
| 25 |
> > you something to argue about every time it is brought up. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> You know, good specs come with a thing called 'rationale' for various |
| 28 |
> points. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
You're welcome to write it. You seem to have lots of free time. I'd |
| 31 |
even be happy to point you in the direction of all the previous |
| 32 |
discussions of this kind of thing, if you have difficulty finding them. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives