On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Peter TB Brett wrote: >> And, furthermore, if I/we fixed it to work as designed, some users >> would be >> up in arms -- because they have been using the mechanism in a way >> contrary >> to its design, and fixing it to work as designed has broken their >> schematics. >> > > During the transition between the current state and the new, fixed > version--- yes. But they also have the option of forking pre-fix or > waiting around until things stabilize. > >> Note that this same point applies to several other aspects of >> gEDA. If, >> when users state that they are taking advantage of bugs, we do not >> point >> out that they *are* bugs and encourage them not to, then we lose the >> ability to fix those bugs. Down that path lies Windows^Wmadness. >> > > We don't lose the ability to fix those bugs. They lose the ability to > continue exploiting those bugs.
There is no bug here. Just a well-defined mechanism that fails to map to an ill-defined concept ("slot"). The certain way to create bugs is to attempt to chase that ill-defined concept with code. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user