On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:18:31 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200 > > If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution which > > will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' and 'we can > > fix it in an awful way in next 10 years'. > > EAPI 5 doesn't appear to be 10 years off. And there are several good > solutions, all of which have been discussed previously. The best is to > write smaller, less convoluted eclasses that don't mix functionality > and overriding default functions. And what can I do about it? People want it this way. > > > Or to put it another way, the point of having a spec is not to > > > give you something to argue about every time it is brought up. > > > > You know, good specs come with a thing called 'rationale' for > > various points. > > You're welcome to write it. You seem to have lots of free time. I'd > even be happy to point you in the direction of all the previous > discussions of this kind of thing, if you have difficulty finding > them. Rationale should be written by the person writing the spec, don't you know? It's your words, so your rationale. Your duty. I can give my rationale for my ideas. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
