[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Luasocket FTP problem
- From: ketmar <ketmar@...>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:42:46 +0200
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:38:22 -0800
"Eric Tetz" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ketmar <email@example.com> wrote:
> > perfectly correct implementation.
> The "fix" doesn't make the implementation any less correct, it just
> makes it work better in the real world. Nothing lost, something
> gained. No-brainer.
> If you have two choices, both of which are correct according to the
> spec, yet one gives you better real world compatibility --
> IRRESPECTIVE OF WHY (you seem to be hung up on the fact that it works
> better because of bugs on the server) -- the latter choice is
> OBVIOUSLY superior.
> > if there's no such standard, than this is an ugly workaround,
> > not a 'bad choice'. more workarounds --> more messy code -->
> > more standards violations.
> How is changing 'pasv' into 'PASV' an "ugly work around", "messy
> code", or a "standards violation"? *lol*
i'm giving up. either i can't explain it correctly or you can't see how
such 'fixes' can create porblems in future.
just one last time i'll repeat: don't 'fix' something that isn't broken.