Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 12:21, vous avez écrit : > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 11:56:18AM +0200, Erich Focht wrote: > > Hmmm, your WARNING looks for me like an unsafe GO decision. But it is a > > GO decision. Only it has attached with it a warning message. So you are > > well within the GO / NO GO pattern. > > > > Actually a WARNING is only necessary because the check is not precise > > enough about the state of the system. If you'd have precise information > > about the system, you could make a clean decision and _know_ whether this > > is a GO or a NO GO. Without the warning message. (And I understand that > > such cases with imprecise checks can exist). > > My feeling is that a WARNING should, by default, imply NO GO. The user > should then have the option to repeat the attempt with a parameter > implying: "I have looked into that (specific) WARNING and have decided > to proceed anyway."
If you do that in the example i gave, just forget any check: it is impossible to be sure at 100% the apt repositories are setup according a specific parttern... in that case, if we do what you said, it may never work even if the setup is correct (it is just impossible to check it). If a warning implies a stop, the warning is then equivalent to an error, there is different between them. Therefore doing that we do not need a Warning statement, just GO and NOT-GO... and back to the initial question. So i tend to agree with Erich a warning is more "message + GO". Regards, -- Geoffroy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
