Ed Mills writes:
> Duck & cover Nate- I sugested that weeks ago and the flames are just dying
> down in my mailbox..
Whoops, sorry. I didn't realize that had already been submitted.
I just read through the mail archive and didn't see much in the way of
flames there. J.S. Duff wants to keep them, but nobody seemed
particularly vehement. Your suggestion was to remove both chomp() and
chop(), and I'm not suggesting both. It also looks like you made your
suggestion in the middle of a flamew^W heated debate on whether the
mere presence of other ways to do something justified removing a
language feature. Those kinds of arguments are rarely taken seriously :)
> It'll be an interesting experiement in "community behavior" however. If your
> proposal is widely acclaimed or even seriously considered, while mine was
> summarily dismissed, then it may be safe to assume that ideas aren't
> considered on merit, but instead on who is the submittor.
I wouldn't go that far. It might say something about the difference
between proposals made as rhetorical devices ("yes, but if that's the
case then you should be getting rid of X, Y, and Z!"). Really, though,
I think it's just that you proposed dropping both chop and chomp for
the reason that they're duplicatable with other features, while I want
to drop chop because its main purpose has now been replaced with the
far superior chomp.
Nat
