<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Poll: personal convenience vs. global improvement of docs



On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:15:56AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006-05-25 23:10 -0400]:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:46:22PM -0400, Dave Waxman wrote:
> > > > 1. I have no problem with variable name changes as long as a reliable
> > > > conversion script is provided together with the new release. 
> > > 
> > > I don't think that's possible.  Too many things like folder hooks, send
> > > hooks etc won't easily be convertible IMO.
> > 
> > Nonsense.  We're only talking about changing names of existing
> > variables.  One name becomes another name.  1 to 1 relationship, 100%
> > convertible.
> 
> No. You can't reliably convert an awk script generating mutt config
> files. You can't reliably convert variable names in macros or push
> commands.

For every one existing variable name, there will be exactly one new
variable name.  How can you not reliably convert any text document
which contains them if that is true?

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

Attachment: pgphf6vYMT2pr.pgp
Description: PGP signature