Alec Warner wrote:
Lets agree to disagree on the definition of technical then and
instead agree that putting EAPI in the filename is a bad design
decision (technicalness aside) and then have a beer!
Wow. That's a *great* idea! ;)
-Cheers, Joe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
I think what you are missing is that some people (me included) think
that the in-file approach is the cleanest and most obvious solution
(which also happens to not hurt performance). So if you want bad
design to be an
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename
based options are objectively better than anything else.
But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits
(although I
This is becoming a rather lengthy email ping pong, but as people seem to be
unable to discuss things I had to highlight a few issues there.
Short version:
- Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like C++ feels better don't
add anything to the discussion and are objectively wrong for
On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
- Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like C++ feels
better don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively
wrong for me, so they have no place in a technical discussion
You mean like EAPI in the
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
- Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like C++ feels
better don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively
On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:14:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
- Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like C++ feels
better don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively
wrong for me, so they have no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.05.28 19:36, Alec Warner wrote:
[snip]
The community could of course just deny the features that require
glep55 (no bash4, no global scope changes, etc..) I guess the
community is doing that by default anyway by repeated discussing this
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:49:54 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Now you may still think (subjective thing, that) that glep55 is the
best solution. And I, with the same subjectivity, think it isn't.
GLEP 55 shows that other solutions require either a design-enforced
performance
Alec Warner wrote:
No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename
based options are objectively better than anything else.
But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits
(although I will concede that EAPI in filename is the 'best' technical
choice).
2009/5/28 Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org:
Alec Warner wrote:
No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename
based options are objectively better than anything else.
But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits
(although I will concede that EAPI in
11 matches
Mail list logo
