I did not intent to write anything else in this thread, but since someone
reverted the edits I made to fix the description of the P++ idea in the
poll, I have to.

One of the many ways in which this poll was problematic is that it
substantially misrepresents the idea - while claiming that this is in fact
what is being discussed/proposed.

I edited the description to reflect what the idea actually is - and given
that it’s my idea, I’m in the best position to do that (some of these
misconceptions were even explicitly handled in the FAQ).  Other than fixing
the errors in presenting it (and still doing so very surgically) - I
corrected two factual errors (type safety in languages is roughly as modern
as VCRs - i.e. not really, and this isn’t an RFC - but an informal vote).
I also added a time qualifier at the end - “at this time”, which is the
only non-factual edit I made, and that I don’t mind dropping anyway as this
poll has no formal standing (and don’t worry, I have no intention to
continue discussing it anytime soon regardless).

You can see the edited version that was reverted here:
I purposely took the time to do it in a “track changes” kind of way, so
that people can see both the original version and the corrected version.

To be clear - I’m not asking for a revote or anything of the sort.  I
really want to put this poll behind us all (I’m sure we all do), but can’t
live with this grossly misrepresented version of my own idea being somehow
validated as authentic by being on a vote - as non binding and informal as
this vote is.



Reply via email to