On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting". > > You're still failing to understand the point of labels parsing rules, > though: the point is to make uses like the above well defined and > consistent.
I understand them just fine; you're just either very fucking daft, which I have a hard time believing, or lieing through your teeth (which fits a decade of behaviour including multiple suspensions for exactly that behaviour). Implicit labels context is build+run. Meaning the following > x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested "conflicting". is actually build+run x? ( build: a run: b ) Which isn't a nested conflict- subset, not conflict. You argue labels are required so people can do nested conflicts; meaning the following extreme example: run x? ( build: a test: b ) And as I nicely pointed out, /not a single fucking exheres/ does that. you've yet to pull out an example contradicting that analysis in addition. So... with that in mind- I'm doing two things; 1) can't force you back under a bridge, instead I'll do the killfile equivalent for a few weeks, 2) my original proposal if you kept being a tool seems appropriate: """ As said, you come up w/ real world examples, I'll include them; else persist and I'll just fold the academic wankery description of labels into the glep if you'd truly like me to (or you piss me off enough I do so to be a dick). """ What I truly love about that solution there is that it's both accurate, and if I play my cards right, I may be able to get a glep passed calling your proposal academic wankery; minimally, it'll be fun from my standpoint to try, so at least something came out of the last few emails from you. hugs and kisses- ~harring