On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:11:22AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > Stefan Monnier (12020-07-28): > > The fact that you sometimes can, seems a clear indication that the > > underlying design still makes it possible [...]
> "Significant" is a subjective threshold. Probing is less reliable than > configuration: relying on probing first is a mistake. Call it design or > not if you will. i.e. "explicit is better than implicit" > It completely depends on the mindset of the project, I am waiting to get > a feel of it. Some projects have a patch welcome attitude, some do not. > More importantly, some project have the attitude "I do not need this, > but if you think you do, and your patch is clean and does not make the > rest of the code more complex, then ok", while others have the attitude > "I do not need this, therefore nobody does" and would reject the patch. Quite long-winded way to say "would they accept my patch?" ;-) > If the patch is to be rejected, or just ignored, then my time would be > better invested in an external work-around, it would be less effort than > forking, and more convenient. I'd just ask them. I.e. explicit is better than implicit. If you need a second pair of eyes to look over your patch, I'm ready. I can read C. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
