On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 7:51:20 PM UTC-5, Andy Parker wrote:
I'm pulling this discussion out into a new thread so that we can become
more focussed. I'm also going to start a thread about one other topic that
has been brought to my attention so that a decision can be reached.
In this
On 2014-12-08 5:54, Spencer Krum wrote:
1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in expressions that
resolve to the names of types. This will be misused, it will make code
unreadable. Please leave it out. Sets of parameters only make sense to
distinct types anyways, if two types really
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Spencer Krum krum.spen...@gmail.com
wrote:
1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in expressions that
resolve to the names of types. This will be misused, it will make code
unreadable. Please leave it out. Sets of parameters only make sense to
On Aug 12, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Andy Parker a...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Spencer Krum krum.spen...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in expressions that resolve
to the names of types. This will be misused, it will make code
1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in expressions that
resolve to the names of types. This will be misused, it will make code
unreadable. Please leave it out. Sets of parameters only make sense to
distinct types anyways, if two types really do accept all the
On 2014-12-08 22:02, Spencer Krum wrote:
1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in
expressions that
resolve to the names of types. This will be misused, it
will make code
unreadable. Please leave it out. Sets of parameters only
On Aug 12, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Henrik Lindberg henrik.lindb...@cloudsmith.com
wrote:
On 2014-12-08 22:02, Spencer Krum wrote:
1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in
expressions that
resolve to the names of types. This will be misused, it
On 2014-12-08 2:41, Andy Parker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:25 PM, David Schmitt da...@dasz.at
mailto:da...@dasz.at wrote:
Hi,
thanks for keeping the ball rolling!
On 2014-08-06 02:51, Andy Parker wrote:
I'm pulling this discussion out into a new thread so that we
1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in expressions that
resolve to the names of types. This will be misused, it will make code
unreadable. Please leave it out. Sets of parameters only make sense to
distinct types anyways, if two types really do accept all the same
parameters, then the
On 2014-06-08 8:25, David Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
thanks for keeping the ball rolling!
On 2014-08-06 02:51, Andy Parker wrote:
I'm pulling this discussion out into a new thread so that we can become
more focussed. I'm also going to start a thread about one other topic
that has been brought to my
10 matches
Mail list logo
