Stephan Aßmus wrote:
Am 21.01.2015 um 21:29 schrieb John Scipione:Axel Dörfler wrote:Better, but why change "must" to "should"? It's definitely a must.I disagree, I don't like to tell programmers what to do and I feel that as a documentation writer it is my job to be humble and not assume too much.In technical documentation, the phrases "must", "must not", "should" and "should not" usually have a well defined (and different) meaning. The use of "must" is not offending or impolite.
Okay, I concede the point, provided that the word does not offend or be taken as impolite.
I tried to update my program to be more clever replacing the deleted BMessage with a new BMessage before Invoke() was called but I was unsuccessful, the kernel caught me and crashed the program (rightfully).
Perhaps a more talented programmer might be able to get away with this trick somehow. In any case it doesn't seem like the kind of thing a person would do on purpose unless they had malicious intent, I guess that's a good reason for the word "must".
