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 |