On 19/01/11 13:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
My response of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 20:58:43 -0600 was a fair attempt at a
response. If you found that dismissive, I'd be hard pressed to improve
it. To quote myself:
I believe the proposed scheme:
1. Changes the language in a major way;
2. Is highly disruptive;
3. Improves the status quo in only minor ways.
I'd be much more willing to improve things by e.g. defining the
representation() function I talked about a bit ago, and other less
disruptive additions.
That took into consideration your amendments.
I don't think that it did. I proposed no language change, nor anything
disruptive. The change in status quo I proposed was essentially the
same one you encouraged here, about a type that gives the user the
choice of what kind of range to be operated on. It appears to me that
you were responding to some perception you had about Steve's full
proposal (that may have been triggered by something I said in the
introduction), not what I actually said in the content.
So, I would still be interested to know how to sound out this newsgroup
with an idea (before coding commitment) and have the suggestions
considered on something more than a superficial level.
Is the newsgroup too busy? Should there be people nominated to screen
ideas that are worth looking at? Should I use a completely different
approach? Your suggestions so far I will take into account, but it
still looks like there's a barrier to me.
Sorry, I could have given more context. But you didn't discuss what I
asked, based on the observation that your detailed criticisms of Steve's
proposal all related to a single aspect of it.
I really don't know what to add to make my answer more meaningful.
Andrei
