Agreed. As I said, these were off-the-cuff comments. I wasn't thinking about porting between a real 407 and pipes. I was thinking about keeping consistent with the model architecture being emulated for the sake of the humans who have to understand 407E, a non-trivial task.
"Simply resisting change" was also not my point. If it were me, I would want to know that any impact of a change would add a significant capability that did not already exist, and which could not otherwise be achieved. In this case, adding SELECT SECOND would seem to be a tolerable work-around, versus a number of broken pipes where the knowledgeable people are long gone.. Also with 6.4 having updated pipes means that there may not be an easy fallback when a bunch of things go wrong all at once. I, too, am a purist that prefers clean, consistent, and easy-to-use interfaces. If costs vs. benefits justifies a change, then I'm behind you 110%. Have a good weekend. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Rob van der Heij <[email protected]> wrote: > > Two off-the-cuff comments: > > > > I'm really rusty on the interaction between the various 407E features. I > > think it's possible that this is consistent with the actual 407. > > We don't have that many people exchange programs between their real 407 and > the CMS Pipelines code ;-) > > > Second, there may be breakage if you "fix" this. There may be pipes out > > there that are using this behaviour, either intentionally or > inadvertently, > > which might produce different results if this is changed. > > Yes, that is a concern with anything that gets fixed. There are quite a few > cases where we can't go back and change things the way we want because too > much water went through the pipeline. We do care about compatibility. > > This particular issue shows even in the book - the example with that option > just did not work. If your plumbing relies on options not doing what they > are > supposed to do, then maybe your pipe will break. I tend to challenge people > to explain me what about the erroneous behaviour was so desireable. > > Simply resisting change does not work. Plumbers tell me that not fixing > bugs > and not adding new function for two decades is not good either ;-) > > Sir Rob the Plumber > -- OREXXMan
