std.getopt suggestion

[Regan Heath]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:44:31 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 10/5/11 10:27 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
>> I understand the issue, and the point you're making below, and I agree
>> completely. At the same time, this particular change being as simple as
>> it is, and as obviously beneficial as I hope I have managed to show,
>> would have taken less time to simply change than it has taken to argue
>> about.
>
> There is the issue that every small change creates a precedent for  
> similar or smaller changes. I spent this much time on this particular  
> issue hoping that it would improve an entire trend going forward.

I think it may have backfired somewhat.  Now people are going to think no  
change is possible and Andrei is an 'Ogre' when it comes to his own  
modules.  In situations like this some sort of precedent or impression  
will always be created.  The best you can do is take control of it, and  
clearly define it.

In this case clearly define the conditions under which the change is  
allowed i.e.
   1. The interface MUST not change (retaining the getopt free function for  
example)
   2. The default behaviour MUST not change (retaining the current default  
values for the globals)

and make that the precedent to enforce on future occasions.  It should be  
like "common law", defined by the first instance, changed hesitantly and  
only for very good reasons.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/