On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 12:57 +0100, Milan Crha wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:57 +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > The fact that you yourself have to guess how it works would seem to > > indicate that it isn't actually specified anywhere. > > Hi, > I should find out by the code reading, but I've been lazy. :) > > On the other hand, once things are less intuitive (or not intuitive at > all), then it either means they are complicated (not necessarily > powerful) or they use incorrect/vague/... names or descriptions. I mean > with that that I tried to guess only based on the names of the options, > without code reading (which is something general users hardly do). > Having good option names, thus they describe what they do easily, is a > plus, though not every option can achieve it. From my point of view.
I agree. If the only solution is to read the code, there's something wrong. I think in this case the problem is one of conception: it isn't clear (or it isn't clear enough) what the behaviour should be. Unless that's defined and described, there's no hope of getting it right. poc _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
