9 May
2005
9 May
'05
1:16 p.m.
Beman Dawes wrote:
"Mathew Robertson" <mathew.robertson@redsheriff.com> wrote in message news:066f01c5543b$96a11570$a901000a@mat...
However it is implemented, it should be 'named' so that it is obvious to a person reading over the code, that the test is checking for a specific capability.
Agreed. That's part of the point I'm trying to make with Peter.
The is_other test _isn't checking_ for a specific capability! That's the whole point!