On 12-May-2002 Marc Wilson wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:52:25AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: >> The only reason it is there now is because it has to be, there is no other >> obvious, efficient, clean way to code it. > > Yes, but changing all sorts of things just to make it go away isn't > optimal. Is it a "gee, that's not pretty issue"? That's all it sounds > like. >
Whether the send to gets changed or not is still to be decided. The menu change is important because it will make other parts of the code easier to understand and program. > So why bother? It sounds like the "empty" menu thing a while back. > True. Maybe we will try it and no one will like it. A big problem is blackbox has a chunk of real old time users who are used to its little quirks and a batch of new people trying to get used to them. Making one group happy inevitably makes the other unhappy. Most of the time a simple option is not a good answer either. I plan to experiment some with cleaning up the perceived warts. Some of them may be decided to be part of the blackbox charm and left, others may get changed.
