[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] XML Policy
From:       Nadeem Hasan <nhasan () nadmm ! com>
Date:       2005-02-25 0:46:43
Message-ID: 200502241946.45961.nhasan () nadmm ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Tuesday 22 February 2005 04:43 pm, Frans Englich wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 February 2005 21:16, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 February 2005 22:06, Frans Englich wrote:
> > > You tell me. Should we skip having a consistent C++ API? No?
> >
> > You keep saying this as if we have have a specification for C++ APIs in
> > KDE. We don't.  We merely have some conventions and a few limitations
> > that are imposed by the tools.
>
> And those conventions are strong; just as strong as if it was written in a
> policy. I refer to it as a policy because it's clear how a generic class
> would be designed, without getting flamed to the floor at commit time. In
> other words, I am confident it would be possible to write a policy with the
> word "should" that starts with Enums, continues via get/setters, and ends
> with class names, that everyone would say, "Yes, that's what we do 99.9% of
> the time."
>
> By the way, we have no specifications at all, we have policies. Just
> because you write something down doesn't mean it becomes a law. For
> example, I reference RFC 2119 to make things clear. It doesn't affect the
> content, it affects how it's said. For example, the word "should" gets a
> very clear meaning, and it becomes obvious that what it applies for is only
> a recommendation, a suggestion of practice.

Frans,

I think you should know when to quit. You are just worsening the SNR now.

-- 
Nadeem Hasan
GPG Fingerprint: 7141 0B1C 9CAF 624D 307F F8EF 6C0C 753E DD3A 0F53

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]