* David Champion [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [2002-08-02 11:18 -0500]: > * "Calum Selkirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of > > > > course), there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between > > > > regexps found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt > > > > linked with pcre actually expected. > > > > > > assuming this is true - who would > > > (1) prepare the transition? > > > (2) write the patches? > > > (3) write the documentation? > > > (4) update the setup files? > > > any takers? > > > > "if" is generally regarded as a conditional and is never in and of > > itself "true" but predicated on meeting certain conditions (in this > > case 1,2,3,4) > > "If it is true that a hypothetical mutt executable linked with libpcre > causes virtually no problems with confusion...."
I agree that this is how i would interpret sven's statement, however, to move from there without commenting on the specific truth/falsity of the OP's statement to "blah .. sven" adds absolutly nothing to the discussion. "We'll assume it's true so i can spew forth ..". Rather than say what the actual objection/problem/solution might be (and in a manner that doesn't simply condesend to the poster). This is to be seen within the backdrop of "read bah", "fix your foo", "*plonk*". Prehaps i need to unsub from the list for a while as i have most probably reached my limit with what i see as svens brash and overbaring way of dealing with the world. > To add to your list of questions: > What's the trouble here? If there is a problem, i would prefer to hear what the "actual" problem is and to see what the various pro's and con's are (i have to admit i wasn't thinking to closely about the problem itself). > Why am I defending Sven Prehaps you feel his comments are adding to the discussion? I don't know. > and what does this say about your posting? It says that you perhaps feel i am treating sven offhandedly? Or that i myself mirror too closely svens offhandedness? Or that i am also not adding any depth to the particular problem being discussed? > Anyway, I don't think it's particularly true. We already have had > clashes where someone (generally a Linux user) posts GNU-compatible > regexes that are not EREs, and someone else using standard EREs cannot > use the macro, limit, or whatever, and must post again asking for > explication, debugging, whatever, and it takes a few iterations to > figure out the trouble. This would only get worse once one can enable > PCREs. That not only makes perfect sense to me, most probably the OP could take your comments seriously while not feeling like his/her head was being held down the toilet bowl and consecutivly flushed. ohh and why no numberd list? ;) best cal
