On 6/12/2014 4:06 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:26:31 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
<[email protected]> wrote:
While I agree on its triviality, I really doubt there's much "weight"
to speak of either. Hara probably could've already implemented and
tested this in the same amount of time any *one* of us have already
spent bikeshedding it.
I don't think it's as trivial as you imply. You have to use a symbol
that's valid, but isn't used in the subsequent loop to avoid collisions.
Well, s/triviality/limited importance/
Slightly inaccurate word choice, whatever ;)
