properties

[Bill Baxter]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Andrei
>> Alexandrescu<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Andrei
>>>> Alexandrescu<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>>> I think the expectation is more that you would address or respond to
>>>> his argument rather than making your own argument again.
>>>>
>>>> Or say something like this:
>>>> The fundamental difference in our viewpoints is that you believe that
>>>> expressing extra semantic information to people who read the code is
>>>> more valuable that saving some typing.  I believe the opposite.
>>>>
>>>> (feel free to rewrite as you wish)  Then it is clear that you have
>>>> understood his argument and have some idea how and where the
>>>> difference in opinion really comes from.   Simply repeating your
>>>> argument makes it look as though you have not read his.
>>>
>>> Well we both repeated our arguments several times :o). And don't forget: I
>>> don't get to decide. So such a discussion between Steve and me could as well
>>> be a discussion between any two participants.
>>
>> That's not quite true.  You do talk to Walter more than Steve does.
>> And I think everyone can guess that if you don't get convinced there's
>> no way Walter will be.  Convincing you isn't sufficient, but it is
>> necessary.
>
> Oh yeah? How about "lazy"?


I mean in this case, since Walter seems happy to leave things as-is.
His expressed desire is to change things as little as possible here.
So if you say a new keyword isn't necessary the chance of a new
keyword is basically zero.

--bb