Re: [FWP] Traffic Signals Should be Rationalized

[sthoenna@efn.org (Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes)]

In article <Pine.ISC.3.91.1000830154423.4191H-100000@pcwiwb.wiwb.uscourts.gov>,
Andy Bach <root@wiwb.uscourts.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm, perhaps cars should have, for safety reasons, "stopping" as the 
> default response to any unknown signal.  This would allow all the color 
> options for signals to be used, as desired and even handle the cases where 
> drivers, baffled by their 3D glasses (or drivers who's batteries have 
> failed, leaving them stuck in 2D vision mode) or distracted for other 
> reasons who fail to register the "time to stop" information.
> 
> Plus, it'll be more reusable.

I strongly disagree.  Thinking of signals merely in terms of colors
which may need to trigger a stop method of course leads you to the
conclusion that unspecified signals should default to stop.  But
there's much more to signals than that!  What if a new object model
comes out that supports a SIGTAILGATED?  If stop were the default, all
current object classes would be wrecked!  Clearly, every signal should
have its own perl-specified default behavior; that way adding a new
signal could potentially require a perl upgrade, but not an upgrade
of every installed module.

==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe