On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 6:57 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Paolo Prete <paolopr...@gmail.com> writes: > > > If you read again my posts, you will find the core specification, with > > a specific word, since the very first posts of this thread, not at a > > random place. And I repeated it several times. The magic word is: > > *template*. > > That's a buzzphrase that doesn't concern _what_ you want to do but _how_ > you want to get it done. > > Not really. I expressed as a spec that I wanted to obtain my result without touching the template since the first post (---> avoid touching footer). Then, this phrase simply repeats that initial statement, where "what I want to do" has already the constraint "get it done in that way"
> In essence you are complaining that you do not see a proper "On" switch > on an axe and you consider it a hack to move the axe towards wood rather > than move the wood to the cutting device. > Not really. I'm not complaining anything/anyone. The hack I highlighted has nothing to do with this example. There's already a proper "On switch" on the LP template and I see it and its rule. I just don't want to violate it, because when you have a _rule_ and you violate it for obtaining your result, I call it a "hack". > > You need to accept that your wish to do things in a certain manner is > not something others will automatically figure out just by repeatedly > hearing in essence "no, that's wrong". You will need to more actively > participate in defining what will and what will not be a manner of > arriving at a page layout that you deem acceptable. > That is what exactly I tried to do, in a *very active way*: I defined my specs since the first post, and I went into detail for them multiple times (readability, maintenance of the code etc.) . TBH I donì't understand what you are talking about. > > -- > David Kastrup >
