From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-05 05:26:38
David Abrahams wrote:
> Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> That's one other option. Another option is just to work with the
>>> concepts as they are and stop trying to convince us they're
>>> ill-conceived. What's wrong with that one? I don't mean to be
>>> facetious, but you seem to be grasping at straws to show that there's
>>> something wrong here, but I don't see what major problems the status
>>> quo is causing.
>> I was hoping to get to the bottom of this, to fully understand what's
>> going on, and why, to convince or be convinced. However, if you are
>> unwilling to continue this discussion, then, well, you have every right
>> to do so.
>
> Well, it doesn't seem all that productive. At some point, which
> requirements to make part of a concept is a judgement call. There are
> guidelines that ought to be followed, but some decisions fall into a
> gray area. You might legitimately choose differently from Aleksey,
> but I don't think the validity of your choice delegitimizes his
> choice, which is what you seem to be arguing.
I never meant to delegitimize anyone or anything, so help me God. It
doesn't mean we can't have a discussion, or even an argument, about
which of several options is better. And I believe that's true even if
we're talking about code already written, used and appreciated. If it
sounded like I was delegitimizing, then I'm truly sorry. My sincere
apologies to you, to Aleksey, and to the queen of England, if necessary.
>> We'll just go our separate ways, each maintaining his original
>> opinion, one of us (me) is wrong.
>
> I don't see why you would maintain your original opinion if you were
> convinced it was wrong.
Now I'm facetious...