2011/5/22 Stefan Behnel :
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 21.05.2011 09:07:
>>
>> On 05/21/2011 07:57 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> In the future, I think we should be more careful with potentially
>>> harmful options, and always prefer safety over speed - *especially* when
>>> we know that the safe way
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 21.05.2011 09:07:
On 05/21/2011 07:57 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
In the future, I think we should be more careful with potentially
harmful options, and always prefer safety over speed - *especially* when
we know that the safe way will improve at some point.
There wasn't a p
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw, 20.05.2011 17:33:
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> why is the "nonecheck" directive set to False by default? Shouldn't it
>>> rather be a "I know what I'm doing" option that allows advanced
On 05/21/2011 07:57 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Robert Bradshaw, 20.05.2011 17:33:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
why is the "nonecheck" directive set to False by default? Shouldn't it
rather be a "I know what I'm doing" option that allows advanced users to
trade speed for s
Robert Bradshaw, 20.05.2011 17:33:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
why is the "nonecheck" directive set to False by default? Shouldn't it
rather be a "I know what I'm doing" option that allows advanced users to
trade speed for safety?
Erm, trade safety for speed, obviousl
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why is the "nonecheck" directive set to False by default? Shouldn't it
> rather be a "I know what I'm doing" option that allows advanced users to
> trade speed for safety?
>
> The reason I'm asking is that I just enabled its evaluatio
