[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [patch] selected/context colors

From: Benno Schulenberg
Subject: Re: [patch] selected/context colors
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:39:10 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.8.3

Charles Levert wrote:
> * On Friday 2005-11-18 at 00:53:21 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > Sure, "damn" is okay, if you wish, but I was also trying to say
> > that it's a bit over the top, because: how many ways are there
> > to choose these colours?
> You missed part of the original intent of
> the comment.

Now it may be that I'm particularly dense, but if I missed it, might 
not some others miss it too?  Comments are meant to clarify, not to 
make people think.

> But I didn't anticipate the "damn" controversy.

I simply saw the word, didn't see the point, and asked you to remove 
it.  Now you could have just explained why the word was there.  
Instead you went off saying that some other file did much worse, 
and that the courts allow us to say it, or at least that some 
comedian thinks we can.

If we all know that colours are subjective, how can you think that 
some users are bound to complain about the choice of them?  And how 
will a puzzling strong word in the source code (which normal users 
don't see) preempt this?

> The thing I find surprising is that you
> don't give me credit in the first place in
> automatically assuming that I seriously was
> thinking in such a fashion.

Automatically?  Assuming?  I?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]