On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 02:35:44PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:30:08AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:06:08AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 07:05:04AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> >> >> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> >> >> > this is now done in the maxmessages branch. > >> >> >> > the option is called ExpireUnread yes/no > >> >> > > >> >> >> you start from the assumption that people would automatically assume > >> >> >> unread messages are not included in this limit, and I think it would > >> >> >> be the opposite for most people. > >> >> >> > >> >> > well, there are two considerations: > >> >> > - i didn't want to change the default behavior > >> >> > - i wanted to default to the safe (don't miss messages) option. though > >> >> > it can be argued that this default is unsafe as far as the size of > >> >> > the > >> >> > initial fetch goes. so maybe i should just make it error out if > >> >> > MaxMessages is exceeded by more than 50% and no explicit setting is > >> >> > present. > >> >> > >> >> That is orthogonal; the default of ExemptUnread can be 'yes'. > >> >> > >> > huh? > >> > >> ExceptUnread = yes doesn't change the default behavior.. > >> > > yes ... so what exactly does the orthogonality refer to? > > The default behavior is independent of the name of the variable. > correct. too bad that you were replying to a selective quote which explicitly excluded the topic of naming.
> >> >> >> I think LimitExcemptUnread is much clearer because a) it explains > >> >> >> what the > >> >> >> option affects; limits (which could be MaxAge, MaxMessages, etc.), > >> >> >> b) the word > >> >> >> except makes it clear that the limit rule doesn't apply to this kind > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> messages. > >> >> >> > >> >> > you meant "exempt". ;) > >> >> > while "limit" may associate better with the "max*" options, it's not > >> >> > self-explanatory either. so given that one needs to look into the man > >> >> > page anyway and the related options are right next to each other, i > >> >> > don't think it's much of a consideration. > >> >> > also, "LimitExemptUnread" is just awkward. it's bad grammar, and > >> >> > sounds > >> >> > plain awful. > >> >> > >> >> ExemptUnread then. > >> >> > >> > the immediate question is then "from what?". > >> > >> By following the rules of rationality it must be a rule, and what kind > >> of rule could affect unread messages? > >> > > as i said, you are assuming way too much. if you really draw such > > conclusions from so short names, you are in for some really nasty > > surprises. > > OK. If it's not related to a rule, what could Exempt mean? > it could refer to the core functionality itself: syncing. which would be very confusing to the guy who thought that if he was equally unimaginative regarding alternative interpretations. > >> > there is also another consideration here: if the choice is not > >> > otherwise mandated, it's better to avoid negative option names to > >> > avoid confusing double negation. > >> > >> I don't know what you mean. > >> > > ExemptSomething == do not do something with something. to enable doing > > something, set the option to no == do not not do something with > > something. bad idea. > > How does LimitUnread exhibit this problem? > it doesn't. pay more attention to the quotes - i'm using them quite deliberately, you know. > >> Besides, once you add the ExcessMessageMode: Keep option, it wouldn't > >> really be "expiring" anything, would it? > >> > > it would still expire from the "working set". > > What does that even mean? > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expire > > : to end : to no longer be valid after a period of time > > : to die > > To die from the "working set"? To no longer be valid after a period of > time from the "working set"? What the f*ck is that? > are you actually lacking the language background, or are you just being contrarian for the sake of it? i for one find the association quite natural, and clearly i'm not alone with that - the term is fairly established in this context. > > apart from that, this mode will make other related option names > > inaccurate if one was pedantic, so i don't think this is a useful > > consideration. > > First you argue Exempt could be inaccurate if *future* options are > added, > actually, i said that it would become (even more) ambiguous, not inaccurate. > and now you say it's not important that Expire makes *current* > options inaccurate. > actually, i said that about ExcessMessageMode. > And at no point in time are you even touching LimitUnread. > actually, i did. right in the previous message. > [...] you made your mind and you are simply defending what you already > decided and no argument is going to change your mind. > or maybe your arguments just aren't that convincing. ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DreamFactory - Open Source REST & JSON Services for HTML5 & Native Apps OAuth, Users, Roles, SQL, NoSQL, BLOB Storage and External API Access Free app hosting. Or install the open source package on any LAMP server. Sign up and see examples for AngularJS, jQuery, Sencha Touch and Native! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63469471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
