On Dec 29, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
On 30/12/2008, at 11:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:08:04AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
Any objection to this must be aesthetic.
In the general case, and presuming it doesn't trump an obvious
technical goal
Which is the essence of this argument - IMO API consistency and
rigor wrt design principles is being compromised by a) arguments
about the cost of writing an extra underscore and b) assertions that
this issue has already been decided.
Actually, that last reason isn't quite complete. It's not just that's
its decided, it's that's it's already been decided, implemented and
working like it is for a year.
Your argument about consistency and rigor being compromised is
unqualified. I see nothing more or less consistent or rigorous about
the current implementation versus other proposals, the rule as is is
easy to follow and use, and as far as I know has no inconsistencies.
-Damien
