[r-t] Practical Extension

[Andrew Johnson]

> From: Pip Dillistone <tuftyfrog at gmail.com>
> 
> Hear hear. 
> 

> 
> In hindsight, if it's really that difficult to codify permissiveness
> (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) then the whole thing should just 
> be got rid of.
'Got rid of'
so do you mean either no extension names at all, or first to name wins?
Anything else will have more rules.

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose 
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

so methods names shouldn't matter, but they do.

So long as you don't rename the methods they commonly ring, most
ringers do not care much about names.

Of the rest, some think they have the right to name a method as they
see fit, and of those some think that every other ringer should
then refer to their method by their chosen name. 
It is permissive for them, but dictatorial to others who want to
see some logic to the system.

I don't see a way to keep everyone happy.

--
Andrew Johnson






Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU