Darren J Moffat wrote: > A point or two of order: > > Please keep comments specific to the proposal under review. > Please keep the feedback technical: > > the following are good: > change x causes a regression > change x is incomplete > change x has a security problem > change x won't work with the foo part of the system > > the following aren't relevant for architecture review: > I prefer y over x > thing x that is unrelated should be done first > Unfortunately, we seem to have a "I want to change x to y because I prefer x to y" proposal.
If Darren would accept "I think the majority of OpenSolaris customers would prefer y over x", we can hit delete now. I believe that you can't make less a fully upward compatible replacement for more, if for no other reason than the EOF handling - that's just the way each one is. Hence. it *must* be a discussion of styles. Is more broken? No. Is less broken? (Maybe - faulty i18n, but lets ignore this) Is man broken? No. I've tried to focus the choice away from personal preference to an assessment of what would provide the "greater good" for the majority of the product consumers. I've failed, but even if it were such an assessment, its still a preference. Sorry to say, I think the popularity contest between more and less has been much closer to being "customer base" focused than the PS1 discussion which seems to be nothing but personal preferences. - sigh, - jek3
