Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Of course. But Rick's argument against was justifying itself on the
parser, not expectation of web-dependence on the results.
It was clear enough (to me and I think others) that Rick was talking
indirectly about web-dependence, but let's not get stuck here.
You've lost track of who's suggesting what. I'm not suggesting
anything - it was a proposal by Andy.
Somehow I thought you were on board (you *are* a Pythonista :-P) -- sorry.
While I have you (and others here), I wish we had a code search engine
strong enough to find patterns such as x < y < z and the like on the
web. Anyone know of anything like that?
I've brought up problems with
the suggestion in the thread. This side-thread is about the fact that
Rick shot down the idea not based on possible breakage, but on a pure
"this would be a spec change" argument, which is not a valid argument
in and of itself against a change. (It points to the possibility of
web-compat issues which would prevent the change, but does not itself
prevent anything.)
You are misreading Rick. When you think someone is making a dumb point,
try reading them a bit harder for meaning.
I just wanted to avoid letting a precedent stand of something being
rejected purely on spec-conflict grounds. I didn't intend for the
point to get confused like this.
No one here was confused, as far as I can tell. There were too many
words and bruised feelings, though :-|.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
