Subject:
|
Re: Y??? 'Cause I'm asking!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:57:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
767 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> I believe the intent is 'should' means 'must' otherwise the rule is
> meaningless and could be completely ignored.
I put in a fair amount of effort differentiating out should versus must. Any
should is really a recommendation. Chris was super anal about how he didn't
want to enforce certain items on people. Uniform colour and solid bricks was
one of them.
So hence, it's in there now as a "should" versus a must.
Calum
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Y??? 'Cause I'm asking!!!
|
| (...) This is a rule. (...) This is not. (...) I believe the intent is 'should' means 'must' otherwise the rule is meaningless and could be completely ignored. When writing design documents I am very careful not to use the word should. It renders (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
