At 10:08 PM 11-11-2001 +0100, Frank Nordberg you wrote:
>Phil Taylor wrote: >... > > In those cases you not only have to deal with a > > multiplicity of ideas on the subject, you also have to deal with > > people arguing from entrenched positions, >... > >That's yet another positive result from the Q: field discussion. Seems >we've managed to avoid the trenches altogether this time. I really hope >it's a sign of a new era, not just a freakish coincidence. > > > > > One thing I might suggest though. If we do get a new draft standard > > out of this, please developers DON'T WRITE A LINE OF CODE UNTIL > > A VOTE HAS BEEN TAKEN AND THE STANDARD BECOMES OFFICIAL. > >Amen and halleluyah, brother :-) Here, I disagree. It would be a horrid mistake to decide on something as standard, vote on it and everything, and then discover it's virtually unimplementable in practice. I'd rather the caplocked phrase above read: TREAT EVERY LINE OF CODE WRITTEN TO THE DRAFT AS AN EXPERIMENT THAT MAY FAIL, AND BE PREPARED TO THROW IT OUT WHEN THE STANDARD BECOMES OFFICIAL. >Frank Nordberg >http://www.musicaviva.com > > >To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: >http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
