| eclipsboi 2004-07-25, 3:55 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:38:12 -0000, steve
<UseLinkToEmail@dbForumz.com> wrote:
>"Tony Marston" wrote:
>with
>Tony, I have to live with what is there now (is there a choice?). The
>point is where the language is going. As an "open language", the
>user community can influence its development.
>
It may be open to suggestion, but it doesn't necessarily mean
everything suggested will get thrown in--think of the mess.
>If you look at Chung’s message, there is at least another long thread
>on the same subject, so believe me, I am not alone in this.
>
If 1,000 people started saying that the sky was orange, would that
make them right? I think in this situation, while your concerns with
how you think include _should_ work are respectable, they are still
incorrect coding either way you dice the onion. As Friday the 13th and
Nightmare on Elm Street has taught us all, there is no safety in
numbers. ;)
>"Tony Marston" wrote:
>No, you simply intro. something like "include_relative", and leave
>"include" alone as is.
>
That's just more namespace that gets used; new bugs get thrown in;
more to maintain. Just because I use my big honking flat head
screwdriver to pry open things doesn't mean I think they should change
it's design to more suit being a prybar. If you (and I mean you in a
general sense) used the available tools as designed, with as little
straying from their original intent as possible, then I gaurentee you
that you wouldn't have [as many] problems like you, and others,
describe. It's a matter of form versus function. In this case,
function is winning out. (no pun intended)
>"Tony Marston" wrote:
>that
>to
>
>Bitching is good. Gets new things developed. If no one bitches,
>nothing new gets done.
>
Yes, speaking up and voicing opinions is great. Bitching is bad; it
sets a negative tone and doesn't get as many positive results. :)
|