* David Schmitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050228 23:55]: > On Monday 28 February 2005 02:43, Josh Triplett wrote: > > "acceptable form for modification" will get you in even worse trouble > > than "(author's) preferred form for modification". The former is a > > subjective criteria, and could raise issues with any code that someone > > claims is difficult to maintain (due to lack of documentation, poor > > programming practices, obscure language, any arbitrary criteria you > > might think of for unmaintainability). The latter is an objective > > criteria, which will only ever trigger in cases of obfuscation and/or > > compilation.
> The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they are able > to > say that source which is unacceptable for modification because of lack of > documentation, poor programming practices, obscure language or any arbitrary > criteria you might think of for unmaintainability is no service to our users > but instead does lock them into low quality code which can only be modified > at high costs if at all. They would be able to say it, but they don't. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]