Yea, got that. I just thought it made sense for a wider audience.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Jacob Todd <jaketodd...@gmail.com> wrote: > No one is stopping you from changing it in your installation. > On Dec 19, 2013 11:38 AM, "Blake McBride" <bl...@mcbride.name> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tristan <9p...@imu.li> wrote: >> >>> > I for one favor practical usefulness over theoretical correctness. An >>> > environment variable option would trivially satisfy both groups. It >>> could >>> > operate as-is so nothing pre-existing would be affected. >>> >>> how long does it take you to run mk, and then realise you didn't Put >>> your >>> last set of changes? >>> >>> i once changed mk on my local machine to act as you suggest, and then >>> took far too long trying to figure out why the program's behavior didn't >>> reflect the code. more time than i saved from waiting on mk? who knows? >>> >> >> If the situation you describe can happen then it definitely shouldn't be >> changed. Could you please provide me with a scenario (sequence of events) >> that would be a problem if mk was changed? I can't think of one. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Blake >> >> >
