On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 6:57 PM David Kastrup <
dak@gnu.org> wrote:
Paolo Prete <paolopr976@gmail.com> writes:
> If you read again my posts, you will find the core specification, with
> a specific word, since the very first posts of this thread, not at a
> random place. And I repeated it several times. The magic word is:
> *template*.
That's a buzzphrase that doesn't concern _what_ you want to do but _how_
you want to get it done.
Not really. I expressed as a spec that I wanted to obtain my result without touching the template since the first post (---> avoid touching footer).
Then, this phrase simply repeats that initial statement, where "what I want to do" has already the constraint "get it done in that way"
In essence you are complaining that you do not see a proper "On" switch
on an axe and you consider it a hack to move the axe towards wood rather
than move the wood to the cutting device.
Not really. I'm not complaining anything/anyone. The hack I highlighted has nothing to do with this example. There's already a proper "On switch" on the LP template and I see it and its rule. I just don't want to violate it, because when you have a _rule_ and you violate it for obtaining your result, I call it a "hack".
You need to accept that your wish to do things in a certain manner is
not something others will automatically figure out just by repeatedly
hearing in essence "no, that's wrong". You will need to more actively
participate in defining what will and what will not be a manner of
arriving at a page layout that you deem acceptable.
That is what exactly I tried to do, in a *very active way*: I defined my specs since the first post, and I went into detail for them multiple times (readability, maintenance of the code etc.) . TBH I donì't understand what you are talking about.
--
David Kastrup