I think your use of "workaround" is pejorative. And can it even be called a work around if it is a best practice even when there is nothing to work around?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Andreas Wenger <andi.xeno...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> how is that not an argument? I'm pretty sure I just used it as one. > > What I wanted to say is that you are completely right, if you say that > it is easy to create a workaround. > But although doing this is easy, this does not mean that we should not > fix this inconsistency (or do you see none?) anyway. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good— Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
