On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > > Bill Baxter wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Andrei >> Alexandrescu<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: >>> >>> Bill Baxter wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Andrei >>>> Alexandrescu<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: >>>> I think the expectation is more that you would address or respond to >>>> his argument rather than making your own argument again. >>>> >>>> Or say something like this: >>>> The fundamental difference in our viewpoints is that you believe that >>>> expressing extra semantic information to people who read the code is >>>> more valuable that saving some typing. I believe the opposite. >>>> >>>> (feel free to rewrite as you wish) Then it is clear that you have >>>> understood his argument and have some idea how and where the >>>> difference in opinion really comes from. Simply repeating your >>>> argument makes it look as though you have not read his. >>> >>> Well we both repeated our arguments several times :o). And don't forget: I >>> don't get to decide. So such a discussion between Steve and me could as well >>> be a discussion between any two participants. >> >> That's not quite true. You do talk to Walter more than Steve does. >> And I think everyone can guess that if you don't get convinced there's >> no way Walter will be. Convincing you isn't sufficient, but it is >> necessary. > > Oh yeah? How about "lazy"?
I mean in this case, since Walter seems happy to leave things as-is. His expressed desire is to change things as little as possible here. So if you say a new keyword isn't necessary the chance of a new keyword is basically zero. --bb