[Answering to a random posting in this thread.]
Please, stop this now, or continue your discussion in private.
Thanks
Ulrich
On Monday 08 of June 2009 22:41:12 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>[snip]
Thanks for your useless statistics.
--
Cheers
Dawid
On Monday 08 June 2009 20:35:22 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:56 +0100
> > And how much developer time would be wasted to do so, and indeed has
> > already been wasted on this?
> Thanks to emails like yours, lots.
5-2009, 800 emails
11.75% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com
4-20
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.06.08 19:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[snip]
> Easily-extractable EAPI either has change scope limitations or a
> considerable performance impact.
That needs to be quantified. e.g. 20ms to 200ms is a factor of 10x but
it would not be considered
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:56 +0100
Steven J Long wrote:
> If the problem had been adequately communicated in the first place
> (which is pretty much required for any proposal ime) instead of people
> being told they "don't understand so go away" we could have agreed
> then, that the issue was simp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.06.07 16:54, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Seriously, let's stop.
>
> This endless debate has gone on for waaay too long and it is just
> plain
> spam now.
[snip]
> Let's just all agree we've failed to reach a consensus and let's
> spend time on s
Seriously, let's stop.
This endless debate has gone on for waaay too long and it is just plain
spam now.
I'm just too tired of reading those endless discussions that are going
_nowhere_.
Let's just all agree we've failed to reach a consensus and let's spend
time on something else.
Surely