>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > Most of your comments don't make sense if you are commenting on the > actual proposal. However, it seems that you immediately ignored the > core part of the proposal, and then commented on stupidity of some > distorted, imagined, half-ass proposal you imagined that lacks the > core part.
I had merely addressed the following two points: - The proposal would split the behaviour of the existing operators depending on context: a) They ignore the revision when in a [] group but don't when used in the traditional way, and b) syntax is changed unnecessarily, e.g. ~ vs == and = vs ===. - The number of operators is doubled for no good reason. Revisions are not so special that they would justify that. In addition, if we limit the allowed range of revisions to 9999, the need for such operators will go away entirely. The most common cases (namely >= and ~) can be expressed already now, and the rather more rare less-than-or-equal-to-but-ignoring-revision can be expressed using r9999 (in those even more rare cases where a < comparison with the next PV doesn't work). For both points the cost of the syntax change or of introducing inconsistencies doesn't come with any benefit in the form of added functionality. > So, please, keep your comments on topic. If you don't like the > proposal (I didn't expect it to be otherwise), try at least to stay > objective. Because, really, complaining that proposal doesn't have > '~' operator means that you either didn't care to try to understand > it, or that you immediately discarded what you didn't like and > complained on the result you created yourself. > I expected more of you. No comment on that part. Ulrich
pgpPcUVI4kKm0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
