OpenEuphoria

Re: Proposal for 'math.e' (2007-08-23)

• Posted by Juergen Luethje <j.lue at ?m?.de> Aug 30, 2007
• 691 views

CChris wrote:

<snip>

>> In contrast to you, I don't want to discuss for the next 2 years about
>> each and every dot and comma in "math.e", without ever actually
>> realeasing it. I want that we somewhat earlier come to a RESULT.
> 
> Which means forcing hasty decisions without considering implementation isssues

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

> and without even gaving the votes you have requested so many times in the
> past.

I don't know what you are talking about. I just proposed to stop
suggesting new global routines and constants for the first version of
"math.e". That's all.

> Again, I don't buy that.

I'm not trying to sell anything to you.
It would help if you were able to stop confusing fantasy with reality,
though.

> > Because I saw people making repeatedly new suggestions for routines that
> > they would like to see in "math.e", I realized that we'd never come to a
> > RESULT that way. So my proposal was to stop suggesting new routines for
> > the first release of "math.e". This should not be too hard to understand.
> > (And I have written about that point in the past at least twice or
> > threefold, BTW.)
> 
> Early, with possible flaws or inconsistencies that were not studied, which are
> harder to fix once the release is out, because code written thereafter  might
> be broken.

I just proposed to stop suggesting new routines and constants for the
first version of "math.e". That's all.

> > This was a _proposal_, the "official decision" was made by Rob. 
> > I also wonder why you didn't object during the last days. 
> 
> I did, and you carefully ommitted to acknowledge it.

Rob wrote yesterday:
<quote>
I don't recall any serious objections to any of that.
</quote>

Do you believe he also "carefully ommitted to acknowledge" your
objection? Maybe an international conspiracy?
==>>  So where is your post that contains the objection???  <<==

> Additionally, I had time to port the C code and test it last weekend only, so
> I could not be aware of some issues before that point. I reported them as soon
> as I could.. Get your facts first.

You are confusing facts with stupid misrepresentations such as
"you carefully ommitted to acknowledge it".

> > But now --
> > a few hours _after_ Rob has made the official decision -- you are
> > objecting. What a strange gane is it that you are playing?
> > 
> > Not actually surprised,
> >    Juergen
> 
> CChris

Regards,
   Juergen