(Wish I'd seen this before I replied to the last message; I could have written a more succinct, all-in-one response. Oh well.)
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:47:54AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > This is not an adequate replacement for "by hand". What if I > pop up an dialog box on detection of X? What if? I would have filed a serious bug if you did that. But then apparently, 40+ years of speaking English as my native language isn't enough to disambiguate what "by hand" is supposed to mean there. So, what does it mean? Anything at all? Why not just say, "you can prompt the user any bloody way you want as long as it works, or use debconf?" :) > By hand is sufficiently vague to be all inclusive. If we want it to be "all inclusive", why not say "any way you want"? That's pretty all inclusive. And it's clear (unlike "by hand"). I assumed that "by hand" was supposed to be excluding *something*. It certainly implies that there are ways of communicating that aren't "by hand". So enlighten me (and us). Just what does it all mean, Mr. Natural? If "by hand" means something (as distinct from "not by hand"), then we should say what it means. And if it doesn't mean anything, why say it? -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
