[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


[lmm: I've been folding short comments into my Issue status file, but this
one is too long.]

 We oppose this issue because:
   - It is not clearly in the best interest of programmers in a supposedly
     portable language to give up the most convenient package creation
     syntax to a non-portable purpose.
   - The justifications given in the proposal are not strong enough to
     support an incompatible change like this.
   - This is a special-case hack that does not generalize. There is
     no way to create a package based on the implementation-dependent
     default -and- other packages.
   - It would be just as easy for someone to say 
     At least this technique generalizes.
   - The Rationale uses incorrect suppositions to arrive at a false
     generalization. Cloe doesn't have the asymmetry referred to.
   - The current practice is not correct.
     No mention of what Cloe does is attempted.
   - Even allowing the default to be controlled by a variable does
     not help because it encourages programs to be developed depending
     on defaults which are not part of those programs, and therefore
     works against portability.
   - The Discussion section does not correctly reflect discussion.
     For example, Pitman has repeatedly voiced strong opposition.
     The Discussion mentions neither the fact that he objected nor the
     reasons for his objection.