On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Michael Gold wrote:
> This thing doesn't need to go on for another month as Jon fears, but I
> personally don't mind a couple more days to reach a compromise solution, or
> at least a less arbitrary tie-breaker.
What new information could possibly by imparted?
I think we all made our points - everyone seemed to finally
understand what the other people's technical arguments were.
It ended up being between:
A/B) We must keep backwards compatibility unless there is a
pressing need - even if that makes new programs
marginally uglier to write.
Versus:
C) We must design a CLEAN standard for the future - and no
matter that some number of existing programs will break.
We all know these things - it's purely a matter of opinion
which is "The Right Thing".
Another day/week/month of debate isn't going to change the
facts - I don't think it'll produce a new mechanism that'll
suit everyone. Those of us in the A camp won't accept
anything that'll stop existing programs from compiling
correctly. Those in the C camp are clearly not accepting
any change to what symbols they'll define or header files
they'll include in order to keep the A people happy.
That's an impass.
I don't particularly like Jon's tie breaker either - I'd
have said:
This question arose AFTER the end of the public comment
period (Monday March 6th) and the (c) solution seeks to
change the status quo. In the event that there was no
majority, the status quo should be maintained - and that's
(a).
That's more politically correct - and corresponds exactly
to what most political systems would do in the event of
a tie.
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
