On Fri, 4 May 2001, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:15:07PM -0500, Chris Stith wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 May 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
> > > (1) Sarathy is happy with the ithreads model and would like
>
> > > (2) Me, Alan, and Dan, and I think to some degree Ben, are disagreeing,
>
> > > Let us agree to disagree and move on.
> >
> > Oh, okay. If the Great Pumpkin[1] says so, so will I do. I just
> > hate to see the ideas brought up here tossed aside. Each person
>
> I think you missed the implication of (3)
>
> (3) Artur, being a wise man, is hiding behind closest tree waiting for
> the noise to quiet down so that he can continue making the ithreads
> model visible from Perl level.
>
> I read that as "patches welcome"
> (although not as "patches accepted without due consideration")
> As is often re-iterated, talk alone doesn't make perl better. In the end
> a patch is needed.
And a huge patch should be implemented, taking hundreds of hours of
someone's time, without the slightest idea of whether or not anyone
else even like the implications of the patch? If I'm to spend that
much of my time on something, I want to be reasonably sure it will
at least get a look before being tossed aside.
Perhaps I should just unsubscribe and let p5p get on without me,
since I think I could be helpful in implementing a patch but
don't trust myself to make a major one to the necessary standards
by myself.
Chris
--
People understand instinctively that the best way for computer programs to
communicate with each other is for each of the them to be strict in what they
emit, and liberal in what they accept. The odd thing is that people themselves
are not willing to be strict in how they speak, and liberal in how they listen.
-- Larry Wall, 2nd State of the Onion Address, August 1998
