On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Daniel A. Koepke wrote: >Oh, yes, I consider it a bug as much as I consider the shared semantics >of violence and mobile pulse spec invocations a bug -- if not more of >one. Unfortunately, it's a design bug and considerable non-stock code has >been written that relies on the current, if flawed, design. That's what >I'm concerned about. Wouldn't be the first time we've had to throw out old design flaws. I'd call the global buffer removal far more intrusive but it's also much better from the "gotcha" standpoint. >> Not that it helps anything other than what you call that changes that >> have to be done. > >...<blink>... > >That's it: no more Babelfish for you. Amazing what one word wrong can do to a sentence: "That could be considered a bug since you should assume 'me' is yourself, but not 'ch'. Not that it helps anything other than what you call that changes that have to be done." "...other than what you call THE changes..." In other words, if it's a bug it's a "bugfix" instead of "interface change", but beyond the terminology it hasn't changed. Perhaps more palpable though. -- George Greer greerga@circlemud.org -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | | Newbie List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circle-newbies/ | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT