Laurent Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> I think this is a great idea in concept. I think
> Chris> implementation may be a bit tricky, though, and I'd hate to
> Chris> have to rely on this as a short term solution. But long
> Chris> term, yes, I would enthusiastically support such an idea, or
> Chris> some reasonable subset, if it were well thought out. Now all
> Chris> we need is a *workable* proposal or six.
> I'am not a registered developper, so I don't know exactly how thing
> works.
Not a problem -- anyone can make a proposal. Also, anyone can comment
on a proposal. The only things you can't do are second a proposal or
formally object.
> And I don't have much time to read all the manuals/policies.
That's unfortunate, because I think you'd be more likely to understand
the scope of the problem if you did.
> But I guess that workable means more precise. So I'll try to be more
> precise.
Workable means, "can be made to work." Which, unfortunately, means
you need a transition plan. Not just, "where do we want to be?" but,
"how do we get there from here?" That, I'm afraid, is the hard part
in this case.
Nevertheless, this is very interesting. I don't have time to comment
in detail right now, but I'll try to get back to it before long,
because I think it deserves a more detailed response.
[proposal elided]
> I hope this is closer to your idea of workable proposal.
It's certainly a step in the right direction! But, at the same time,
please don't hold your breath -- this would require a *lot* of work to
implement. But it's still interesting.
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
