On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:44:12 +0100 Jeroen Roovers <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:31:19 +0000 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS > > because it means subtly different things in different contexts. > > You're doing it again! You're not citing any decisions on actual > mailing lists, chat logs or in documentation, and you use > qualifications like "subtl[e]" to denote some deeper rationale that > is apparently very difficult to explain to the "uninitiated". Good > job, if your job was to deter the "uninitiated". > > Where was that decision recorded? What subtle differences did you > perceive? Which contexts lead to those different meanings, and why did > you not keep "atom" and qualify it according to context? Did you > document the history, present and future of the term "atom" so you > could point out why it was rejected for future use? Even, what > real-world problem were you trying to solve in rejecting "atom"?
Unfortunately we had a team of three when writing PMS to begin with, and the emphasis was on producing a definitive spec, not a history book. We did not have a volunteer archivist at the time. If you'd like to volunteer to start, I'm sure you'd be welcome to produce an annotated PMS for people who are interested in that kind of thing -- the annotated C++ reference manual was a lovely read, back when it was maintained. -- Ciaran McCreesh
