> I care. I want a professional easy to understand and easy to maintain > that doesn't cause potential conflict with future and past development
> syntax. I agree with this. The point of my comment was that ISTM that an arbitrary amount of time can be consumed determining the optimal syntax, during which Oleg is obligated to continually update his patch without any guarantee that it will be accepted in anything like its current form, or at all. If people have strong opinions about the syntax, why were they not ALL expressed when the proposal was originally laid on the table? Sure, some people offered opinions, but it doesn't appear that there was any real consensus, and there certainly wasn't any clear guidance of the form "this is what you need to do to get your patch accepted", which leaves everything in limbo and Oleg doing a lot of extra work to keep updating his patch. I haven't studied the proposed syntaxes in detail, but ISTM that if there is no consensus then probably all of the alternatives being advocated are reasonable. Again, if that's not the case, then let's eliminate the unreasonable ones and pick one of the remaining choices. But if committer A thinks that X is the only reasonable options and committer B thinks that Y is the only reasonable option, does that mean that the patch just sits there forever, or do we find a way to move forward? ...Robert ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster