Re: Re: Packages that need packages that need packages
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg37828] Re: [mg37792] Re: Packages that need packages that need packages
- From: Tom Burton <tburton at brahea.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 06:11:37 -0500 (EST)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
As you say Bobby, if I need Angela and Angela needs you, then indirectly I need you. If I need you ONLY through Angela, I need not express my need directly to you. On the other hand, if I need you independently of Angela, then I should say so. I agree the "security" is not an exact analogy. Perhaps "indecent exposure" would be better (while still provocative enough to interest me). In my opinion, packages should interact in a way that all exposure is intentional. If I ask to see Angela, who in turn asks to see you, then should I without asking see you directly? I don't think so, unless I need to see parts of you not relayed by Angela. (Angela may see parts of you that I don't particularly want to see!) But in the latter case, I should explicitly request to see you. Tom Burton On 11/13/02 8:39 AM, "DrBob " <me at example.com> wrote: > If this were a question of security, your analogy would be apropos, but > it isn't about security at all. > > If you need Angela and Angela needs me, do you need me? YES. > > Bobby