It's .... you. * My objection to the Java community process applies in _some_ _small_ part to the Perl community process. I present it as a negative ideal with the implication that it should be avoided.
* My objection to it being rejected out of hand applies not to the Perl community process nor to the people that think i's ugly. I don't argue subjectives. I say people are eager because they've ignored repeated clarifications, continueing to cite groundless technical reasons. That I can aruge =) I interpret this as haste, and it is this haste I object to. * Hence my goal to summarize and prod gently at the eagerness of some. So, my apologies to who anyone who feels unfairly or excessively criticized, except chromatic. There is no forgiveness for someone who seeks out irked people with the single goal of further irking them. Since chromatic is so eager to be offended on behalf of other people I hope you really enjoy being offended. Na na na! One of these days I'm going to resolve to hunt you down to irritate you as you do to me. -scott On 0, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 12:27, Scott Walters wrote: > > Without commenting on the rest of the proposal, please allow me to clear > up one point: > > > * Rather than eliciting public comment on %hash`foo (and indeed %hash<<foo>>) > > the proposal is being rejected out of hand > > This whole thread *is* public comment. > > Some people like it, some people don't. Some people think it's useful. > Some people think it's ugly. Some people think it simplifies things. > Some people think it complicates things. > > Larry hasn't weighed in. Larry might not weigh in. Larry might like > it. Larry might not. > > Larry might think it solves a real problem and come up with a nicer > unification that almost everyone can live with. Hey, it's happened > plenty of times before. > > > (incidentally, the mantra of the Java community Process > > Now that's just rude. > > You are welcome to think that a certain proposal you like is the best > thing ever and should certainly go in Perl 6 for whatever reason -- but > claiming that the proposal has been "rejected out of hand" on a public > mailing list where people are discussing the proposal and some people > like it and some people don't is rather silly. > > -- c >
