| 1 |
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:44:12 +0100 |
| 2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:31:19 +0000 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS |
| 6 |
> > because it means subtly different things in different contexts. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You're doing it again! You're not citing any decisions on actual |
| 9 |
> mailing lists, chat logs or in documentation, and you use |
| 10 |
> qualifications like "subtl[e]" to denote some deeper rationale that |
| 11 |
> is apparently very difficult to explain to the "uninitiated". Good |
| 12 |
> job, if your job was to deter the "uninitiated". |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Where was that decision recorded? What subtle differences did you |
| 15 |
> perceive? Which contexts lead to those different meanings, and why did |
| 16 |
> you not keep "atom" and qualify it according to context? Did you |
| 17 |
> document the history, present and future of the term "atom" so you |
| 18 |
> could point out why it was rejected for future use? Even, what |
| 19 |
> real-world problem were you trying to solve in rejecting "atom"? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Unfortunately we had a team of three when writing PMS to begin with, |
| 22 |
and the emphasis was on producing a definitive spec, not a history book. |
| 23 |
We did not have a volunteer archivist at the time. If you'd like to |
| 24 |
volunteer to start, I'm sure you'd be welcome to produce an annotated |
| 25 |
PMS for people who are interested in that kind of thing -- the |
| 26 |
annotated C++ reference manual was a lovely read, back when it was |
| 27 |
maintained. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives