On 10/21/2018 5:54 PM, Manu wrote:
Would you please respond to my messages, and specifically, respond to
the code that I presented to you in response to your broken example.
Or any of my earlier fragments throughout this thread. I've shared
quite a few, and so far, nobody has ever produced a criticism of any
of my fragments. They've just been skipped over.
That's just the problem. You've posted 62 messages so far in this thread, and
then there's all the ones Nicholas posted.
Trying to assemble the "earlier fragments throughout this thread" is not
practical for readers, and the endless nature of this thread is ample evidence
for it. The n.g. is a place to discuss a proposal, not the proposal itself.
This change is definitely merits an actual proposal DIP, so that one is assured
of seeing the complete proposal, rationale, examples, etc., in one document, as
well as not being distracted by sidebars, thread drift, and mistakes. This
document can evolve with corrections and clarifications from the discussion, and
anyone can get up to speed quickly by just reading the latest version of it.
> But the one aimed directly at your own most recent sample program
> addresses your program directly.
My most recent sample program was a direct criticism of one of your fragments,
so please don't say "nobody has ever ...". I do understand your frustration at
finding it hard to get your point across, but the problem at least for me is
trying to mine it from nuggets scattered across 62 posts. Mine it, refine it,
cast it into an ingot, then present it as a DIP.
