Switch-case made less buggy, now with PATCH!

[Don]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm just saying
>> that the patch was mostly turned down because he didn't asked for other
>> devs permission to make the patch, not because of the quality of the patch
>> (or the feature) itself. That discourages people to make patches, and
>> I think that's *really* bad.
> 
> Don may have said that not discussing a change before submitting a
> patch for it dooms the patch to failure, but I don't think that's true
> at all.  I think it just means that the chances the patch will solve
> the problem in a way that is agreeable to those who matter is much
> smaller.  But if Chad had managed to hit on the magic formula that
> everyone thought was a great solution, I think the patch would have
> been accepted (after some inevitable discussion).

I'm making an observation. AFAIK such patches have never been accepted.

> In this case, had Chad discussed the matter first, I think he would
> have quickly found that there was little support for his syntax
> extension, and he could have saved himself the trouble of implementing
> it.

Yes. It's such a shame, when there are so many bugs open in Bugzilla, 
that someone spends time on a patch which you can say apriori that it 
will fail.

BTW, even my opDollar() patch has not recieved _any_ comment from Walter.
He made a negative comment about opPow(), so at this stage it's not 
likely to get in. A single negative comment is typically the only 
feedback you'll get. In this case, Walter made a negative comment 
*before* the patch was made! In those circumstances, you're really 
wasting your time.