On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 April 2012 05:36, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez >> <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I find the color output of Clang just beautiful and, in my opinion, >>> color support in GCC would make it a bit more beautiful and attract >>> new users, so it is a much better use of developer's time than fixing >>> yet another obscure diagnostic issue that only triggers with a careful >>> ad-hoc example. That said, I do really think you are free to work on >>> what interests you, so I hope to see your patches fixing diagnostics >>> issues soon. >> >> Is this the kind of protracted passive-aggressive opinion you were looking >> for? > > I think my words above should be read in their own context, where > their true meaning can be fully appreciated. Then, one may be able to > appreciate that: > > * Saying "I don't think X is important, so I am against it and you > should spend your free time in Y." and "Of course, you are free to > spend your time in whatever you want." is not logically consistent. > The only choices offered are Y or nothing. > > * A real choice is offered by the paragraph above which changes the > statement to "I don't think X is important, and you should use spend > your free time on Y, but I am not against Y, so patches welcome." > > * In the paragraph above, you also seem to have missed the irony that > the example I chose as "not important" are small diagnostic issues, on > which I (among very very few) have spent significant effort in the > recent years. I was hoping that this irony would help the reader to > understand that the example is not meant to be taken seriously, and it > is only there to demonstrate the previous logical inconsistency. > > But my writing skills are still as poor as always, since it seems I am > having trouble making myself understood by some. So if you still > didn't get my point above, I am unable to explain myself in better > terms. Thus, let's forget about this and focus on the issue at hand. > > Cheers, > > Manuel.
If you believe people miss your use of irony, then it is up to you to decide how to effectively get your points through effectively -- I am just not sure blaming people for missing your use of irony is effective. If this passive-aggressive strategy was the first or second time, I would not mind -- in fact, I was hoping you would get tired of it yourself. So, yes just to straight to the points. -- Gaby
