Re: [ 1687659 ] Eq Customizer ignores PLUS: Token restrictions after removal
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ovka" <lpacdavis@...> wrote:
> What's the point of coding a rule into a dataset if you are going to1) Ease of use. Assuming the user coded the rule into the dataset is
> ignore it?
a bad assumption. I would assert most users use our datasets without
modification, which means they are not familiar with LST and want the
program to "just work".
2) Flexibility. There have been posts here and elsewhere about
getting flexibility and not having PCGen enforce the rules at the
expense of the user. This isn't law - the rules should be bendable.
> Isn't the normal process to allow for bypassing of rules toNormal does not necessarily imply good, and I was reacting as much to
> include a checkbox in the house-rules section?
Karianna's use of "ideal" as I was to the question of "what should be
done in 5.16?". Like many things I believe we should do, this one may
not appear in the ideal state in 5.16. So be it. We have to
prioritize what we do. However, I will remain of the opinion that the
user is first, and we need to give flexibility to that user without
requiring explicit action by the code team.
My issue with the existing house rules section is that it's not
flexible. Effectively, it's code overhead - we have to add a
preference to the preference UI, storage into the options file, and
allow that preference to have an impact in the code (which often makes
the code harder to read and follow). It is - in my opinion - a huge
inhibitor to having a house rule. If every house rule has to run
through the code team, then we've defeated the concept of a "house
rule" and made it a "world-wide rule you can apply in your house".
There's a difference there, and one I hope we can someday resolve.