Robert Bradshaw wrote: > There's been comparatively little debate about Kurt's project, so I'm > not sure why this proposal was so much more controversial.
My reaction emerged because Dag failed to provide enough information in the CEP(s) to clear up the implications. He left them out because he knew what he was talking about anyway, but I literally had to pull the details (even goals!) out of his fingers one by one before they even received mention in the CEP. And the more details I saw, the more I got the feeling that this was just another application of parametrised types, as discussed several times before. Solving a problem once is sometimes better than solving many problems many times because the real problem seems too far away. Although the current state of the discussion may mean that we at least end up with a bird in the hand. Wouldn't be the first time. > I think language design is hard, and doesn't happen overnight, but we > do need to come up with a new system for deciding this kind of thing. > > Looking back (and into the future) here's a system that may have been > more effective--at some point I should have thrown all the > controversial issues on the wiki CEP page, listed the pros and cons > of each, and allowed everyone to edit and expand. (Fortunately we're > all mature enough here to not have edit wars.) And if everyone who brings in criticism is forced to either add it to the CEP or even do some larger editing on it, I think you will quickly see who is really interested and constructive. It will also break down the size of e-mail threads, as a revised CEP is a good starting point for a new discussion. > This way the main > points (just the data, not a talk page) would be listed in a > succinct, non-redundant manner, at least much more so than a 50-long > email thread. Very true. > Then, once everyone feels that the CEP hits all > relevant and important points, we should vote. Of course, this isn't > a simple democracy--not everyone will vote (but we want to make a > decision based on the input of those who at least care enough to hit > reply rather than delete on their email client) and someone we've > never heard of before doesn't have as much sway as someone who's been > contributing for a long time, but hopefully consensus, or at least a > clear majority, will become obvious. I think this will become a lot simpler when there really is a mostly complete CEP to point your fingers to. Agreeing that a CEP is complete pretty much implies a decision what should be done with it. And if there isn't a clear decision, well, then there's the need for a BD (not sure about the FL). Personally, I would still consider the current CEPs far from complete (not feature-wise, rather in the sense that they lack discussion points and alternatives), so rushing to get them accepted and implemented feels wrong to me. But as I said, I'm out of that discussion anyway. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
