[Ltru] Re: "mis" update review request

[Michael Everson]

At 19:24 -0700 2007-04-17, Peter Constable wrote:

>I continue to see comments in this thread in which people are trying 
>to stretch the semantic of mis or zxx or und to cover some pet 
>scenario. As long as we keep stretching these to mean concepts that 
>are slightly (or entirely) different from what they were intended to 
>be - semantics that IMO are fairly straight forward once stated - 
>then we're going to continue debating what that should mean, and 
>that portends that users will *never understand our intent and use 
>them consistently.
>
>We should simply take them for what they are. If we need concepts 
>that are different, then we can consider identifiers to represent 
>those concepts.

Hear, hear.
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com