On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:55:07AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I have a similar opinion. I haven't looked at it, and I won't do that in the > > near future. So you might have done something really good, but I doubt that > > after reading Matt's mail ... > > I think that's the opposite of what Matt was saying.
I don't think so. But that's just how it seemed to me ... > > At least, I interpreted Matt's mail as saying basically this, "it has lots > of flaws and here's what I think they are _BUT_ it's still a good start so > let's go with it." And nowhere did I see Matt say that Stephen hadn't > done good work. You're being _way_ too harsh on someone who's obviously > spent some serious time thinking about the problems P5EE would need to > solve. Just cause his pre-0.01 version doesn't address a lot of those is > hardly a reason to bash him. What I say is that it is probably good work (or not), but it does not cover some elementary things and thus might not fit the P5EE name yet. Whatever this name means, but a lot of people will expect something else I guess. Regardless of how pre-alpha it might be. So this is basically a namespace thing ... Torvald
