Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Apr 18, 2007, 15:10 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704181058190.4504@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704181313060.12094@racer.site>

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > So what?
> > 
> > We provide a rope with proper caveat emptor.  Up to others to hang 
> > themselves with it if they so desire.  It is not our problem anymore.
> 
> The people will complain. On this list. And I have to check the mails 
> before deleting, because the Subject: does not say "I just took the rope, 
> ignored your caveat emptor, and now I am dead. What should I do now?".

Well... in the case of keyword expansion (since this is really the contentious case here), with such a _generic_ facility to implement external filters, people will at least have the opportunity to try it. Sure they might complain that it doesn't work well, but 1) it is much easier to *understand* why it doesn't work well after experimenting with it, and 2) some people *will* be perfectly happy with something that doesn't work well but happens to just work in their own particular case.

And because it now becomes a case by case issue it is much easier for us to simply provide a generic mechanism and let people figure out by themselves what works and what doesn't work instead of having philosophical discussions on the merits of keyword expansions on the list.

And because people _will_ complain *anyway*, it might lead to more productive discussion if those who complain had the chance to realize what the issues really are by experience if theoretic demonstrations alone doesn't convey the problem fully.

Nicolas