Tim Moore wrote:
> Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > Nobody wants to see fgfs stagnate. But that doesn't justify every
> > approach, no matter which bad side effects. There is an alternative
> > solution with *no* bad side effects, but all the same possibilities.
> > None of the vector-property supporters even bothered to explain why
> > this generic approach wouldn't work or would be worse.
>
> I'm trying to give your generic approach a chance.
I may be mis-interpreting your words, but if this means you're actively
investigating coding your new changes without vectors, then you deserve
many heartfelt thanks for putting extra effort to accommodate others in this,
whatever the outcome.
I very much appreciate it.
-Stuart
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
