On (09/23/08 10:47), Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
> I understand and appreciate your passion. I also welcome the rest of the
> "group" to contribute here. This is why we have reviews. Personally I'm
> fine either direction, the differences are too small for me to find the
> energy to defend or play devil's advocate for either. You make excellent
> points, and unless I hear otherwise, I'd be happy to go back to my
> original proposal.
I think much mail has been exchanged here, and it may be useful
to summarize the 2 alternatives in question. Was the original
proposal:
> for 'field' in (all fields in datalink.conf)
> if 'field' not in (known field names)
> then 'field' is a private property
? If yes, the only modification I would suggest is
for 'field' in (all fields in datalink.conf)
if 'field' not in (known field names) && 'field' starts with "_"
then 'field' is a private property
isn't that sufficient?
--Sowmini
