Re: Twiddle? - correction

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Jon Guyer (jguyer@his.com)
Date: 8 Mar 01, 03:29 EST


From: Jon Guyer <jguyer@his.com>
Subject: Re: Twiddle? - correction

At 1:16 AM +0900 3/8/01, Masatsugu Nagata wrote:

>_What_ is that "good reason", in this particular case?

/You/ said it had a bug and didn't account properly if there was a 
selection at the beginning of the file. I have no idea if this is why 
the code was changed and I'm not arguing that it can't and shouldn't 
work better than it does. I'm just saying that it's incredibly 
unlikely that Vince, I, or anybody else has ever said "gee, I'm not 
busy today. I think I'll rewrite a perfectly good proc of Pete's for 
no good reason".

>If you object to our suggestion, you should give us an explicit "good
>reason" for the 7.4.1 'twiddle' behaviour, and should also give answer to
>David's complaint:

Mark, Mark, Mark. /You/ said Pete's code had a bug. I assumed that's 
why somebody started to change it originally (software evolution 
being what it is, it's not surprising that the code drifted further 
away from Pete's for other reasons as time went on). That's my one 
and only point. I don't object to the way twiddle did work, does 
work, or will work. I don't twiddle.


I am not saying that Pete's code is bad or that it should not be used 
where appropriate (heaven knows there are still thousands of lines of 
his code in use right now). I just don't like the implication that 
Vince or others are changing code just to break things. That's 
idiotic.

-- 

   Jonathan E. Guyer
   <http://www.his.com/jguyer/>

_______________________________________________
AlphaTcl-developers mailing list
AlphaTcl-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alphatcl-developers


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by das@users.sourceforge.net with hypermail 2b29 on 31 Mar 01, 11:51 EST