Re: about volatile.d.o/n
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:33:40AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> paddy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I can see your point of view here. Ironically, I've been assuming,
> > purely on names, that you are more likely to be living in an english
> > speaking country (as am I), whilst Sven might be less likely.
> More to the point, the issue isn't whether a well-behaved program uses
> only the C locale.
> It's that we should be stable even for users who
> are "misusing" the system.
<asbestos suit on>
They jabber away in that funny lingo of theirs, gawd bless'em,
but we're all the same under the skin ain't we?
</keep asbetsos suit on for few days just in case>
But I don't suppose that's what you meant :)
'stable even for users who are "misusing" the system.' sounds like it
could turn out to be a tall order, if it is intended to have wider
I think that in the end I come back to the obsevation that in the
same way that we don't need 'just another backports', nor do we
need 'just another stable'. What people suggest volatile might be
seems to be about the score. If I summed together all the posts
in these threads advocating features of stable for volatile, it
seems an awfull lot like 'just another stable', but I don't see
the point of being different just for the sake of it.
I think there need to be good reasons to depart from stable, and
clearly, in some areas at least, there are. This may or may not
be one of those areas, I don't see into it that deeply.
I can't help being struck by statements along the lines of
'we should be stable ...'
I find I want to rewrite them
'we should be volatile ...'
or, perhaps more sensibly,
'volatile should be stable'
But, stangely enough, its the last one that bothers me the most.
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall