Re: Proposal for 'math.e' (2007-08-23)
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Ok, but your posts sound exactly like that.
> > 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.
>
Then you should say "stop adding any new feature which is not implied, or
required, by the known contents of the file". Your intent was certainly stated
imprecisely.
> > 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.
There is no fantasy here, simply a disagreement on the methods you are using and
a strong belief that they are harmful.
>
> > > 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??? <<==
>
Ot was posted on monday (implementation of exp()) and saturday (possible
inclusion of polynom()).
> > 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".
>
If you were so "clean" about ythe way you proceed, you wouldn't need to be rude
towards dissenters. You have done so repeatedly in the past, I'm going to be less
lenient on that in the future. You have been warned.
If there is any misrepresentation, it comes from you bullyish way to push
things. There is no timetable for 3.2, nor is there any for regular candidate
releases (could be a good idea if we could state something like that - fork to
other thread -). So I am quite suspicious about why this rush of yours.
> > > 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
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
