Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Robert Fraser wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Before reading your post, I was going to say that I'd expect 4, would
accept 1, and consider 2 or 3 to be buggy! Notice how under your new
proposal everyone would still get the behavior wrong when reading the
code.

everyone posting heavily in thiss group != everyone

Yes, but it's a representative (albeit small) sample of the user base.

That I disagree with. I mean... you're just saying it. Participation to a newsgroup is not necessarily correlated with much else than interest and available time. Besides, it's hard to say how representative a sample of 10-15 is.

Of course it isn't representative. Not even necessarily influential. But it is /something/. Normally, when we have discussed "new" things, half, or even more have been of the [not final] opinion, which has had to have been changed. Interestingly, this one was pretty unanimous.

But you're right: participation in a newsgroup, happening to see a particular post, and happening to respond to it, before too many others find it useless to contribute, can hardly be considered representative. And that's precisely why we've had Walter as the Dictator, and lately you (for Phobos, at least). Majority lead development is not going to lead us anywhere, and I guess we all know it. Grudgingly or not.

Instead of a voting community, the major contribution of this NG migth be to bring up unexpected issues with the latest developments (both concepts and implementations). Linus Torvalds used to welcome "more eyes", under the idea that haystacks shouold get rid of as many needles as possible, or else you can't enjoy jumping into them.

If you said "influential" instead of "representative" then I'd agree you're on to something.

P.S. I scrolled down your post looking for counter-evidence that you might have brought, but found only the please-don't-do-this-again empty quote. It wastes everybody time looking in vain for nuggets of responses within the quoted text.

Is consistency a good argument? std.string.split currently does (4). Java and C#'s split() methods work like (4). strtok does (4). Is there any other language/function besides Perl that does (2)?

Yes, Phobos' Splitter :o). Alright, it's not like I'm fixated. I can make the change. I'd be glad to have a stronger criterion for making one choice or another.


Andrei

Reply via email to