Derek Martin wrote:
> Any reasonably intelligent person could surmise that what he meant was
> according to a reasonably flexible set of rules that the user could
> define. It does not do that.
Sure it does. It is a reasonably flexible set of rules. It just isn't a
highly flexible set of rules. Furthermore the user can define what those
rules do.
Sorry, but where does "a reasonable set" begin short of, say, Python?
Yes, I'm serious. Short of embedding a scripting language in which to program
the rules those rules are just a subset of what people could do. I mean,
frankly, give me a "a reasonable set" of rules and I could find a case I might
want which isn't easy or even possible to fit into those rules.
So no, I'm sorry. Since "a reasonable set" of rules is subjective one has
to go with the objective basis he gave which was rules base. There are
multiple rules. He, or you, or anyone else might find them lacking but that
does not mean they're not there.
Go back about 2-3 versions of Thunderbird to see the difference between
"not there" and "not up to my personal standards."
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature