Hi Seth. Sorry, my asterisks were not at all meant to be a flame. Please accept my sincere apologies if it appeared that way.
I wrote: >> It is *not* "trivial to wrap the function in question", and >> it is not "more correct". Seth Kurtzberg wrote: > Why is it *not* trivial to wrap the function? Regardless of > whether you like the resulting solution, it is undeniably trivial > to change the name of a function, create a new function with > the (original) name, and have that new function... > implement different behavior... That may be trivial when writing a new program, but it may also be difficult or even impossible when the code is already in use and shared among many other existing programs. Summarizing: o The current (until recently) method has been in place for a long time, and works fine. o It follows a widely-used convention, though arguably a somewhat messy one. o It provides a prominent behavior, so changing it suddenly is very painful. o It is dubious whether the change, as implemented, achieves its intended purpose at all, namely better Windows integration. o Even if you believe that it does, the small amount of value it provides is not worth the cost. I support providing a default value for the home directory when the user does not specify one. It would be nice if this could be done in a more Windowsy way. Since another of my points is that we are focusing too much on this issue, I will say no more and gracefully accept whatever the community decides at this point. Thanks, Yitz _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
