On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:30:01PM EDT, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:53:02AM +0900, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote: > So, solutions we can choose are: > > (1) Include my simple patch. (This is the most > conservative way. Almost nothing changes) Analysis: Change the program to match the docs. Pros: The documentation needs no change. Cons: Useful program behavior is lost. > (2) Include dgc's excellent "unbind" patch. (This > provides the most intuitive UI (and many changes)) Analysis: Change the docs to match the program, and add code to provide original doc functionality. Pros: No functionality is lost, and useful functionality is gained. Cons: complexity > (3) Document that "noop does not unbind the key. It > does disable the key. You are not able to unbind > the key." (This is the most useless idea.) Analysis: Change the docs to match the program, and to hell with original doc functionality. Pros: No code needs changing. Cons: The docs describe functionality that would be nice to have. After somebody went through the effort to write up the docs, why not code it? Would anybody else like to contribute campaign materials, or are you folks ready to start casting votes? (Hey, Thomas, if I bribe you, can you just take #2 and short-circuit the voting process?) - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpv4LtyHRTk7.pgp
Description: PGP signature