On Jan 23, 4:19 pm, Jason Wolfe <jawo...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Jason Wolfe <jawo...@berkeley.edu>
> > wrote:
>
> >> OK, if these are not wanted in core right now, will anyone sign off
> >> for adding them to clojure.contrib?
>
> > Well, *I* want these changes you've proposed in the core, but of
> > course, I'm not in charge.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > I guess the real question is, what is the
> > process to ensure that Rich sees and considers a potential core
> > improvement like this? I think the main mechanism for this is to post
> > it as an "issue" on google code, but I'm not certain whether you're
> > supposed to post an issue unless he's seen the newsgroup thread and
> > says, "Yes, that sounds good, please post it as an issue." But if he
> > misses the thread for some reason, that will never happen. So it's a
> > bit of a catch-22. Anyway, maybe someone can clarify the procedure.
>
> Yes, it is not supposed to be posted as a core issue unless Rich OK's
> it here.
>
> I just had a discussion about just this "meta"-issue on IRC. Chouser
> says that Rich still reads every message on the group. See also the
> further-up discussion in [1] for more procedural details, where it is
> also suggested that an explicit sign-off here should be required for
> posting clojure.contrib issues.
>
> [1]http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/657291bc62c48f32?hl=en
>
> Anyway, I'm feeling quite frustrated and won't try to push this (or
> any other) issue further. I know Rich and the team are very busy, but
> it really saps my will to contribute when I have to keep pushing to
> get an authoritative answer (be it yes or no) on even (what seems to
> me to be) a fairly uncontroversial change like this one, or [2].
>
> [2]http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/5d11bc0da...
>
> Sorry for taking your question as a jumping off point for whining
> about not getting attention. I guess my short answer is: the policy
> is fairly clear, but its current implementation may be discouraging
> potential contributors like myself.
>
I appreciate your desire to contribute, but Clojure is not just about
your needs. You have flooded the group with every idea you have, some
are bugs (important), some are good ideas, some not, but there are
simply too many to address at the rate you are producing them. In
addtion, sometimes you've made issues, and often blogged about them.
So, for #2 the issue was addressed and you found out about it that
way. I can't answer you (or anyone) in every forum.
I'd advise you to be more patient, build up a small library of helper
functions you use frequently, make contributions of the most important
of them to contrib. Clojure doesn't change that fast and it's not
going to. I like to consider things and I can't address every
suggestion as it is made.
Separate out the important things (like potential bugs) so they get
more attention.
As for these:
- 0-arg distinct? returns true, not an exception (so (apply distinct?
nil) = true)
Not now, will consider.
- rewrite concat so that (apply concat seq) doesn't evaluate the
first three elements of seq
No, may fall out of streams work.
- make every?, not-every?, some, not-any? take multiple seq args like
map, i.e., (every? not= [1 2 3] [2 3 4])
No.
- allow arguments to merge-with after the first to be lists of
pairs.
No.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
