On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 04:08:31PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and > > Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch > > clauses? If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in > > the list archives. > > No, you've described why they cause practical inconvenience. You haven't > described why everyone else ever was wrong.
No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse. The only counterarguments I've ever seen are: - "code reuse isn't important" (often thinly veiled as eg. "you don't really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it"), and - "if you really want to reuse code, you can create a complex, massively impractical patching system to handle it" (and I'm not convinced that's even possible, when two separate patch-clause code bits end up mashed closely together). Now you're not even giving an argument; you're merely appealing to the crowd. Since it would take a GR to fix this, anyway, that's not very interesting; if the crowd really does agree with you that code reuse isn't very important, such a GR would fail. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
