Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:21 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Martin Peach wrote:
Well isn't it just easier to use something with a different name? If you have a backwards [pow] why not just call it [backwardspow] instead of letting users guess which [pow] is the right one?
who would object to that?
but which [pow~] _is_ the right one, and which one is backward?
this is so much a rhethoric question, which is practically so easy to answer and was already answered. i absolutely don't see the point of this question
hmm, martin suggested (supposedly joking) to call one of the [pow] objects [backwardspow] (which i guess would have reversed inlets). now i guess that cyclones [pow~] is reveresed, should we just arbitrarily change it's name?
i think, that the question, why a new object [pack] is named pack is not rhetoric at all and isn't answered yet. so lets go again: why is [pack] from zexy called [pack]?
because it is meant as a fully backwards-compatible replacement of [pack], with added features. since i have been repeating this for several times now, i would be interested in the precise part of the above sentence that is unclear to you.
fmgasdr. IOhannes