On 5/11/2010 12:51 AM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
> This is diversion, my e-mail was not intended to diagnose social
> action, the power of conventions or norms.

It may be a diversion, but mostly it's an attempt to explain to you that 
your e-mail was completely useless. For some reason you are assuming 
that everyone must know why you think you've discovered a bug, even 
though you are neither providing context nor rationale for your foregone 
conclusion.

Hint: The DNU you've encountered cannot happen in 4.1. There are simply 
no senders of that method. If you still think you've discovered a bug 
you'll have to back up your claims with *some* substance.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> 2010/5/11 Andreas Raab<andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>> On 5/10/2010 10:16 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>>
>>> Where is the question? It's just a bug report.
>>
>> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#id382249
>>
>> "Don't rush to claim that you have found a bug
>>
>> When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you have
>> found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless you
>> can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression test
>> against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are
>> probably not sure enough. This applies to webpages and documentation, too;
>> if you have found a documentation “bug”, you should supply replacement text
>> and which pages it should go on.
>>
>> Remember, there are many other users that are not experiencing your problem.
>> Otherwise you would have learned about it while reading the documentation
>> and searching the Web (you did do that before complaining, didn't you?).
>
> This is not complaining, it is just an informative e-mail, you may do
> anything you want with it. Maybe the guy who wrote that have a lot of
> free time to read documentation, maybe he was paid for supporting open
> source software, I'm not.
>
>> This means that very probably it is you who are doing something wrong, not
>> the software.
>
> Prescriptive statement, besides, it's always about the people.
>
>>
>> The people who wrote the software work very hard to make it work as well as
>> possible.
>
> Hasty generalization or composition
>
>> If you claim you have found a bug, you'll be impugning their
>> competence,
>
> Irrelevant association, quality or correcteness of a particularization
> doesn't imply inherently qualities of generalizations like competence.
>
>> which may offend some of them even if you are correct. It's
>> especially undiplomatic to yell “bug” in the Subject line.
>>
>> When asking your question, it is best to write as though you assume you are
>> doing something wrong, even if you are privately pretty sure you have found
>> an actual bug. If there really is a bug, you will hear about it in the
>> answer. Play it so the maintainers will want to apologize to you if the bug
>> is real, rather than so that you will owe them an apology if you have messed
>> up."
>>
>
> He seems concerned about public behavior and specially the moral value
> of apologies (although his vocabulary is really far from a
> professional sociologist or specialist in moral ethics). Let's focus
> to this "incorrect" behavior, you suggest it's not a bug, so it
> shouldn't be fixed? Or you would not integrate a fix for it? I would
> appreciate if you explain why the MNU #withStyleFor:do: isn't a bug so
> I can adapt my tools around it.
> Cheers,
>
> Hernán
>
>