Re: thoughts on new modes (Ie)

[Ville <viha@xxxxxx>]

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Emiliano Valente wrote:

> Christophe Kalt wrote:

> > Thoughts?

> I agree.

I disagree strongly. I don't think we want to change anything like this
after n+1 pre/beta-releases of the 2.10-series already being run.

That not being the main cause for disagreeing, the new klud^H^H^H^Hpatch 
would IMO be too complicated and likely to cause desynchs if not planned
properly. Maybe it doesn't burn that much CPU, but why burn any at all,
if we don't need to.

Nor would much be gained with this patch, as a way around would probably
be found in a matter of days. (On the other hand, I am definitely not
saying we should stick to a DFIIWBA[*] policy.)

It might still be useful to remember that the users are not likely to RTFS
(or even RTFM) 2.10 specific stuff. They'll learn 2.10 by just what they
are told. The majority would probably end up banging their heads to the
well after trying to figure out the mysterious logic behing the connection
of +e/I and +b/i.

Let's keep things as simple as they are .. ;)


> cleX

- Ville/viha@xxxxxx

---
* == Don't Fix It, It Will Break Again. [ Often used in situations
where  a bug in  the code has been exploited, once fixed and a new
exploit  (usually a worse one)  of another kind has been made. The
frustrated  developer(s)  then  refuse to cooperate as the program
seems hopeless. ]