Hi-
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:46:08 +0100, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the arguments that was made was also that the existing methods
have failed, which would make #3 the odd one out and probably #2 as
well. "I don't really care what the final name, but it should match
the first principle..."
Given the editor's strong stance for your own viewpoint, it seems that
your deference to him is not altruistic.
I was merely negating your argument, hence the quotation marks.
No, you were relying on the arguments of the first stance again. The
latter 2 stances are independent of one another, with their own
arguments (we're all familiar with them). That those methods have
"failed" is not conclusive.
Your preference is clear from the way the methods are named in the spec
as it is.
Regards-
-Doug
