On 4/24/02 2:53 PM, "Daniel Dekany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wednesday, April 24, 2002, 5:53:23 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> On 4/24/02 11:31 AM, "Daniel Dekany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> It is really hard to carry out any new feature here, since the list >>> readers and especially Geir is really very very critical. And is's >>> good. But then, why do we have things in the core like current >>> escaping rules (\$foo) or the current whitespace gobbling? >> >> What's wrong with the escaping rules again? This is like groundhog day for > [snip] > > I will not debate on it again, you will understand the problem if you > want. Period. I wouldn't debate it with you, but I am more than happy to discuss the reasons. But you understand the reasons for it, right? > My answer is the same when you try to say that there are > no serious problems because of backward compatibility. Sorry - could you please point out the place where I said there are no serious problems because of backwards compatibility? I say we aren't going with the first proposed solution that breaks backwards compatibility just to have a 'solution'. > You are not > stupid/ignorant so you can see it. You have answered my question: "No, > there will not be 'Big Review'" and that was why I have writen the > mail. OK. On may part thread terminated. No - the 'Big Review' is a community decision. It's a free world, and Velocity is free code. If you want to do a 'Big Review', feel free. You have the code. You can change whatever you want. You can submit patches. We can try the patches. We can accept the patches. We can reject the patches. *MY* feeling, and I am one guy, is that we don't need a 'Big Review', that we are working through the issues separately. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting Be a giant. Take giant steps. Do giant things... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
