Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> Can I deliberately misinterpret this as saying that you think that the
>> changes would be fine so long as we add lots of tests at the same time?
>
> Not "at the same time", but "as a prerequisite" for any serious
> consideration of such changes.  IOW, I want to see the tests first,
> decide whether I like their degree of coverage, and only then I will
> be prepared to _talk_ about any changes in this area.  And the first
> step in that talk will have to be someone presenting a rather complete
> design of the changes, including an analysis of the current callers
> and how each one (or each class) of them will work under the new
> design.


Actually, for me, any individual change that removes inconsistency
between the b-c-f and a-c-f locations is a positive thing. I already
have a fall back plan, but the fewer times this is called, the more
efficient my code gets.

Phil