Alec Warner wrote:
> Lets agree to disagree on the definition of "technical" then and
> instead agree that putting EAPI in the filename is a bad design
> decision ("technicalness" aside) and then have a beer!
Wow. That's a *great* idea! ;)
-Cheers, Joe
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>>> No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename
>>> based options are objectively better than anything else.
>>
>> But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits
>> (although I will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> I think what you are missing is that some people (me included) think
> that the in-file approach is the cleanest and most obvious solution
> (which also happens to not hurt performance). So if you want "bad
> design" to be a
2009/5/28 Joe Peterson :
> Alec Warner wrote:
>>> No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename
>>> based options are objectively better than anything else.
>>
>> But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits
>> (although I will concede that EAPI in filename
Alec Warner wrote:
>> No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename
>> based options are objectively better than anything else.
>
> But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits
> (although I will concede that EAPI in filename is the 'best' technical
> choic
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:49:54 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Now you may still think (subjective thing, that) that glep55 is the
> best solution. And I, with the same subjectivity, think it isn't.
GLEP 55 shows that other solutions require either a design-enforced
performance penalty or remove the a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.05.28 19:36, Alec Warner wrote:
[snip]
>
> The community could of course just deny the features that require
> glep55 (no bash4, no global scope changes, etc..) I guess the
> community is doing that by default anyway by repeated discussing th
On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:14:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200
>
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > - Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels
> > better" don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively
> > wrong for me, so they have no place in
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> - Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels
>> better" don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively
>> wrong for me, so they have no place in a
On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> - Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels
> better" don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively
> wrong for me, so they have no place in a technical discussion
You mean like "EAPI in the filename feels b
This is becoming a rather lengthy email ping pong, but as people seem to be
unable to discuss things I had to highlight a few issues there.
Short version:
- Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels better" don't
add anything to the discussion and are objectively wrong for
11 matches
Mail list logo
