Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Yes. You want to refrain from forcing every reader to have to go look at > the definition of that function at that revision. The accumulated time > spent tallies up rather in disfavor of doing the work diligently on the > contributor's side and save every reader some time. I mean, you forced me > to spend the time, and then to spend more time to point out the missing > analysis, and then you provided the paragraph as a question, forcing me to > spend even more time on answering. All this time could have been saved in > the first place. In this instance, it is too late to do anything about it. While I very much like to see that you subscribe to the principle, and I do wish that the "question" were posed as a comment after the three-dash-line in a rerolled patch that is written under the assumption that the answer to the question is "yes", which would have saved one extra roundtrip, I do not think the question was not something to be scolded like the above. All writers tend to assume that their readers know more than they do, and that is where the "do not force the reader to know or go look at things if they don't" principle comes from. But you're assuming that your "what's the fallout?" question did not need clarification, but it is understandable if it weren't. > But I'm sure you plan on contributing other patches. Hopefully it will be > more efficient next time. Thanks.
