Hi. Le dim. 10 mai 2026 à 13:49, Toolforger <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Am 10.05.26 um 13:17 schrieb Gary Gregory: > > On Sun, May 10, 2026, 06:51 Elliotte Rusty Harold <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 12:36 AM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello Jo, > >>> > >>> I don't think anything like this should be added to Lang. That part of > >> the > >>> library is a mini-framework that apps can use to suit their needs. We > >>> should not start accumulating more implementations than we already have. > >>> > >> > >> Makes sense. Can you close the issue as won't fix then? > > > > Closed. > > I was preparing an answer that explores possible consensus based on > experiments, code analysis, and improving understanding, but I see I was > wasting my time as there was a predefined consensus already.
Two opinions is not a consensus... I didn't look into why it cannot be in [Lang] but we have to follow the opinion of the more active maintainer. However, from what I understood of the argument, this feature might still be a good fit (?) for "Commons Text". [Depending on how "standalone" the implementation is, it may be best to create a dedicated module.] Regards, Gilles > > [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
