| 1 |
On 10/24/04 Ed Grimm wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> How about the following: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> We add a + operator, to specify settings which are fundamentally part |
| 6 |
> of the group. Negating the group strips all negations, strips all |
| 7 |
> simply present flags, and negates those with a +. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Please lets try to keep this as simple as possible. Personally I don't |
| 10 |
see what's wrong with a simple string expansion with the optional |
| 11 |
negation modifier. True, this might create results in some situations |
| 12 |
that are confusing at first view, but at least it's easy to explain, |
| 13 |
every more complicated proposal will also create (other) potentially |
| 14 |
confusing results and will be harder to explain. And keep in mind: more |
| 15 |
complexity results in longer implementation times (well, design + |
| 16 |
implementation + testing + documentation). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Marius |
Archives