| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 19 September 2012 14:01, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the |
| 7 |
>>>>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would |
| 8 |
>>>>> outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing variables for |
| 9 |
>>>>> dependency specification won't disappear, so devs would have to |
| 10 |
>>>>> remember both. |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> I agree it is a con, but is it a blocker? I mean basically any change |
| 13 |
>>>> proposed requires know the old way, and the new way..that is how |
| 14 |
>>>> changes work... |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Which is why changes need to have clear benefits that outweigh the |
| 17 |
>>> costs of change. In this case the benefits are purely cosmetic, so |
| 18 |
>>> they don't. Change for change' sake is not worth the effort. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> -- |
| 21 |
>>> Cheers, |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> Ben | yngwin |
| 24 |
>>> Gentoo developer |
| 25 |
>>> Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> I'm sorry. Are you reading the same threads that I am? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> You've seen me participating in those, so obviously: yes. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So then you must have also read Brian's email detailing the metadata |
| 33 |
savings, and allowing the PM to parse fewer things (even with |
| 34 |
quantitative measurements!). Search your email for 'cold cache'. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[snip] |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Looking at what you call cosmetic makes me think that you're |
| 39 |
collapsing "cosmetic and a useful change" down into "cosmetic" in |
| 40 |
order to disregard it. |
Archives