Re: Consistent formating long descriptions as input data (Was: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> So long as we have an implementation which works for the vast
>> majority of cases we can file bugs to make it work for the few
>> cases where it doesn't. (Or the output can just be slightly broken
>> in those cases; it's not like that's a huge problem.)
> IMHO this whole discussion is the problem. I just wanted to define
> rules to enable us filing bugs.
There's no point to defining rules without a working implementation,
because we don't know what the rules should be. Once there is a
working implementation that works for a reasonable majority of the
descriptions, we can define rules based on the implementation, and
then file bugs against those few descriptions which are problematic
according to the rules.
> The discussion just runs circles about the next step before doing
> the first.
What you appear to be calling the next step (getting a working
implementation) is actually the first step from my perspective (and is
presumably shared by others.)
"A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on
a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'..."
-- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc.