> a middle ground about/with silliness? there is none, for people in their > right mind; should people really find/force > themselves into conciliation about non-sense? I don't think so and mostly; I > have no say about deprecating that; > but is that a priority? does it harm anyone? someone have died from backtick > infection, it must be according to some? > and so on. Don't see where there is a heated topic; solely a reminder about > reality and facts.
> What would a happy medium be? backticks working 50% of the time? > This is like someone being pregnant, either you are or you are not there is > no half pregnant. Either backticks work like they have in shells for decades > or they don't work. What's the point of deprecating them without a plan to > remove them? A notice without future action is a bad idea, as it sets > standard that some deprecation messages will not be acted upon. Well, those are exactly the opposite of the types of responses I had hoped for. Responses that ignore the concerns of others. Responses that (implicitly?) insult the intelligence of others. And responses that can only see things from one myopic perspective. These responses highlight perfectly why discussions on this list are so contentious. -Mike
