I completely agree. My "When the costs were minor" refers to when we were not yet aware of the conflict.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Le 26 août 2015 à 00:43, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> a écrit : > > When the costs were minor, it was ok that the benefits were minor. Given > significant costs, we need to ask: > > > While I don't have a strong opinion about the cost of the proposed > modified grammar, I protest that the cost of the previous version wasn't > anything near minor (although it was probably an oversight): having `-x**y` > producing (literally) the opposite result of what is expected, and even > only half of the time, is a high cost in terms of bugs produced and > debugging man-hours lost. > > —Claude > > Why do we need ** ? What great benefit does it provide? If nothing > compelling, then this proposal has lost consensus. > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > Le 25 août 2015 à 03:22, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendo...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Jason Orendorff >> > <jason.orendo...@gmail.com> >> > P.S. Admittedly it might be a good idea to rename "UnaryExpression" if >> > we put a binary operator in there. >> > >> > -j >> >> "RightAssociativeExpression"? >> >> —Claude >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
