Norman Vine wrote: > I submit that your patch is an additional mode and should be presented > as such rather then BREAKING existing behaviour as IMHO is all to > often what happens when someone decides to get involved with a piece > of the code.
Oh dear, not again. For the record (and I really tried to make this clear): I'm not refusing to support a 2D "HUD". I was asking what, exactly, your requirements are so that they can be supported in a sane and maintainable way. Trying to use HUD code to draw into screen space is a square peg in a round hole and needs to be fixed, not hidden with a preference where it will get forgotten as a booby trap for future developers. Now, what broke? You still haven't answered what it is you want, and why it needs to be part of the HUD. Seriously, name your requirement and we can try to meet it. Refuse to allow changes in functionality and all you'll do is halt development. For reference, see this fantastic diatribe by Havok Pennington on the dangers of accommodating every imaginable UI preference. It was written in the context of the Gnome 2 "no crackrock" policy. http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html Just because your requirements are met by existing code doesn't make that code the *only* way of meeting your requirements. Be reasonable and flexible and you'll get what you want, I promise. Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
