Josh Bressers wrote:
With all due respect to kre, who has forgotten more about Unix than
I will ever know ... I cannot disagree more.
This is flamebait, shame on you.
I'm not sure how that was flamebait? It sounded sincere to me :-)
Anyway, in answer to your questions:
1. The scope of mh is a dynamic, rather than fixed thing (I think this
was pretty much kre's point, really)
2. If mh has new features, as long as these features are invisible to
people who don't use them, and don't obfuscate the code, I think
everyone wins.
3. Cleaning up the code is a vital thing to do, but I'd rather see it
cleaned up as things are done, than having to clean it up first, before
seeing any improvements.
I find it surprising that people feel so strongly about this. If
someone is implementing a feature that you don't need, but it doesn't
break the features you do use, wouldn't you just shrug your shoulders
and move on?
re,
N
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers