Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 25/12/08 03:24, Max Waterman wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Of course, the flexibility to do what is asked/wanted would be nice, but
>> I don't consider this particular case as being something that *should*
>> be done because it's *the right way*. On the contrary, IMO, it's more a
>> side case that is *the wrong way* but would be nice to be able to do.
>> Yeah, I'm not afraid to say it's wrong (if that's what I think) ...
>> religious or not :p ... let the flames begin ;)
>>
>> Max.
>>
>
> If you're saying yourself that that's what you want to do and that it is
> the wrong way, who can disagree? Some people will agree that they want
> to do it too, others will agree that it's the wrong way. :-)
>
> Makes me think of "creado quia absurdum" ("I believe because it is absurd").
>
I think I was going for something along the lines of "it's the wrong
way, but it's the best we have; especially in the short term"....
Max.
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
