Re: [bpfk] dag-cll, next steps

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> And so will all the ones after it, no, since we'll renumber them?
> Or are you seriously suggesting that we *never* update any of the
> examples, that if we delete 5.1.3 we leave 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 with the
> same numbers they had before, even we end up with a section with
> 5.1.2, 5.1.2-2, 5.1.5, and 5.1.8 ? If that's what you're suggesting,
> wouldn't *named* examples be infinitely better?

Quite seriously, and yes, names would have been better, but in effect
the numbers are names.  When they tear down the house next to yours,
they don't renumber all the adjacent houses on the rest of the street.

> You seem to be failing to understand what I'm proposing.  I'm
> proposing auto-generating *exactly the same numbers we have now*.

No, I grasp that, I'm simply against it.

> If we add or delete an example in the middle, yes, the numbering
> will break, but as you've just admitted, that's true right now.  At
> least, I sincerely hope that's what you've just admitted.

Nope.

> I'm just saying that a human shouldn't be in charge of updating all
> the internal references when that happens.

I agree.  But if you leave them manual and don't renumber, then
that isn't a problem, is it.

-- 
We call nothing profound                        cowan@ccil.org
that is not wittily expressed.                  John Cowan
        --Northrop Frye (improved)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.