General talk about software patterns

[Kevlin Henney <kevlin AT curbralan.com>]

On 2010-11-07 02:32, Messaging Design Pattern wrote:

Let me try to clarify additional aspects of the paper.

A useful rule of thumb to apply when dealing with reviews of any form of composition, whether code or papers, is to consider the need for additional clarification as a strong hint that something is amiss with or is missing from the composition.

Rather than justify an issue to the list (or a reviewer), modify the paper so that these points do not need clarification or defence. Sometimes this means rephrasing, sometimes this means resequencing, often this means removal or replacement. If an analogy doesn't work, don't defend it, delete it. An analogy exists only to explain; if it itself requires deeper explanation, the analogy has failed.

HTH

Kevlin
--

________________________

  Kevlin Henney
  +44 7801 073 508
  http://curbralan.com
  http://kevlin.tel
________________________