On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:57:41PM -0400, Mouse wrote: > > Don't be silly. > > I don't think it's silly. Slavish adherence to an system A's semantics > when working on system B, just for the sake of adherence that _does_ > strike me as silly. Maybe that's not actually what's going on here, > but that's what it looks like to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.
What, exactly, is gained by being gratuitously different from the reference implementation of a concept? -- David A. Holland [email protected]
