>That means turning one feature on/off magically changes the state of >another feature, so the order of setting the features will become >significant.
Only when the settings are incompatable. I consider that less confusing than other ways of dealing with the inconsistancy. Your milage may vary. >I think we should take the simple and clear approach, and let people >learn/remember what dynamic validation means, instead of letting them >guess/hope what it means. We agree on that; we just disagree on the details of what it ought to mean. <smile/> I don't expect agreement, but you did ask for opinions so I gave mine. Do with it as you will. As I said, the *right* answer would be to fix the API so there's no way to assert an inconsistant set in the first place. But that option isn't on the table. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
