From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5705 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2012 18:18:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 5695 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2012 18:18:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (HELO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org) (204.13.248.71) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:18:37 +0000 Received: from pool-173-76-50-112.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([173.76.50.112] helo=cgf.cx) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rl2ku-000AdE-DX for cygwin-talk@cygwin.com; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:18:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id E126013C022 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:18:35 -0500 (EST) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/Licn2HlZPHP3d1R8jYnuj Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:18:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: considering modifier keys after gaining focus Message-ID: <20120111181835.GA7726@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com References: <4E4A8D56.6010704@gmx.de> <4F09B4D4.4070905@gmx.de> <4F0AF463.5050707@dronecode.org.uk> <4F0B2DC8.9030706@gmx.de> <4F0DC3DF.8000802@dronecode.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F0DC3DF.8000802@dronecode.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-q1/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 05:16:15PM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote: >I think it is useful to consider this history when reviewing a patch, as there >are a couple of dangers this avoids: > >Are we going in circles? Are we fixing one bug just to re-introduce another >bug which has already been fixed? > >Are we doing in the wrong direction? Adding special case on top of special >case, increasing the complexity of the code, is often a sign that something is >wrong with the approach taken. Somebody has to speak with Jon TURNEY. He's talking CRAZY again. cgf