Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Does anyone have a fix for R4/PL1 XGetDefault?
Message-ID: <9002192329.AA01985@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 19 Feb 90 23:29:07 GMT
References: <49225@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 63


    Well piss me off!  Why the hell didn't someone answer this way
    sooner?! 

Well geez, why didn't you solve all the world's problems in 30 seconds
when I wished on a star three years ago?  You seem mighty demanding of
fast response on a piece of software you probably paid nothing for, and
continue to pay nothing for in the way of support services.  Why don't
try putting yourself in our shoes, and imagine thousands of people asking
you for perfect response time for any and all queries sent to you, even
though it's only supposed to be a small part of your job.  We try rather
hard to respond to questions, but we also try hard to get real work done.
If our response time is not always to your expectations, I guess you'll
have to lower your expectations.  (If you don't like our level of support,
you're welcome to join the X Consortium, so we can serve you better. :-)

    I thought I wasn't seeing a response from someone in authority
    because they didn't have the time for the fix.

If your posting went to comp.windows.x/xpert, perhaps you didn't see a
response because of one of:

a) it never arrived
b) we were simply too busy with other things, and it got "aged out"
c) we somehow skipped your original posting (sometimes we're human, and
   we actually fail to read all messages in perfect detail)
d) your original posting had the word "awm" in it, and got skipped over
   automagically to avoid throwing up
e) we saw your posting, but our reply got lost
f) person A thought person B would answer it, and vice versa

    How long would it have
    taken you to write this response a month ago when I first asked?

Since I can't recall the exact circumstances, I don't know.  We did
receive your report to xbugs sent Jan 20, and it is on file with the
comment that the code is correct but better doc is needed.  I must
assume that you were sent a reply, since that is SOP and I actually
processed the bug myself, although I have no way of verifying whether
the reply indicated that the code was correct, or if you got the reply.
I would guess that I did indeed reply with the information, but if I
didn't, it was simply an oversight on my part.

    As for Proper Behavior: DOCUMENT IT DAMN IT!!!

Yes, this is a very nice thing to do.  Of course, for a system as complex
as X, it is rather difficult to document everything to the necessary
level for understanding by each and every reader.  It is a continual
process of improvement.  Your bug report is noted.  We are not perfect.

    What is the rationale for not supporting multi-level
    resource names in XGetDefault??

XGetDefault is basically an X10 compatibility routine (and probably should
have been place in an appendix).  I don't believe X10 supported multi-level
resources.  The code uses the class "Program.Name" (of course this should be
documented too, but isn't).  A basic requirement of all the resource routines
is that the length of the class list match the length of the name list.

    Are you simply trying to discourage its
    use?  If so, mark it as deprecated in the manual page!

That's probably a very good idea.