On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robin...@sony.com>
wrote:
> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that. Looking to avoid being trolled. ("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully
> my intent is clear enough.)
>
I'm really not sure what you mean here.
>
>
> | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
>
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
>
>
> If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?
>
What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that
will or will not get you kicked out.
>
>
> | But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most
> of us are not lawyers.
>
That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different
in practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.
I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have
precise bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay. Yet they still
have serious consequences.
> Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a
> way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
>
I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely
what conduct will and will not be okay.
Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think
it's fine as-is.
But I understand if you disagree.
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
