On 6/18/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > As for the comment: It apparently *is* misleading, George mistakenly > took it as a requirement for future changes, rather than a factual > statement about the present (even though it uses the tense of simple > present). Anybody breaking 2.3 compatibility will have to remember > to remove the comment, which he likely won't. This sentiment is puzzling to me. It seems you assume that we can trust future developers to change the code but we can't trust them to update the documentation. So we can't have documentation even if it's factually true just because someone might forget to update it? Why is the mere possibility of incorrect documentation in the future more significant than actual correct documentation in the present? Couldn't the same argument be used to support removing all documentation from all code? If you see a better way to word the comment to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, that's cool with me. I'd just like people who get their hands on the module to know that they can use it with 2.3. -- ?!ng
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4