On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Ken Wesson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Michael Gardner <gardne...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That's what archives are for > > Are you honestly suggesting I search the archives for every word of > every thought that it ever occurs to me to post here? > > I don't have that kind of time and I doubt anyone else does. If anyone > started to actually enforce such a rule, participation here would drop > to practically zero overnight.
That's a mighty fine straw man you have there. And how deftly you knock it down! >> Are you saying that simplifying existing code provides no benefit? > > If it breaks existing client code then yes. Simplifying internals > without altering API semantics is generally a good thing; when the API > semantics start changing, though, an unequivocal improvement becomes a > tradeoff that might tip either way. > > Changing the behavior of arithmetic operators that are found in > virtually every extant source file is going to have a very big > downside in broken backward compatibility. If there's an upside, it > would have to be staggeringly enormous to make such a change > worthwhile. The claim I responded to was: "it cannot logically ever be a point against keeping current behavior". You are now arguing a much weaker claim, that the upside of simplifying existing code is unlikely to outweigh the drawbacks of breaking existing code. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
