At 09:40 AM 9/24/2008 -0700, Mike Stewart wrote: > > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:53:56 -0500 > > From: Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: VFP9 > > > but it still ignores the fact that it is cowardly and annoying for them > to insist that this isn't a > > bug. > >Except that I think you've put more thought into the resolution than >the resolver of the bug did. It's not unreasonable to argue that it >is indeed a bug; I'm with you there. I also don't think it >unreasonable to argue that the function that is called was originally >designed to handle < 256 chars, semantically making it "by design".
Well that's the problem: "by design", semantically, means something was done on purpose. I think everyone agrees this is not the case since these software "situations" occur when environments change, products are enhanced, etc. So it definitely wasn't done "on purpose." I think MS likes to use the term "by design" because it makes it sound like they are "in control" and "all knowing" about everything this is going on. I suppose no one likes to admit they have a "bug" in their code, but using the term "by design" is inaccurate at best and deceptive at worst. A better phrase would be "design limitation" or "code constraint". Then again, expecting anything "honest" out of MS is probably a bit too naive anyway. :-) -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
