Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

[tomas]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 08:14:28PM +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote:

[tomas]
> > That's it. Although my feeling is that your (Alan) reaction was too
> > sharp, I also feel that you, Philippe, disregard the cultural aspects
> > of your proposal [...]

> I'm amazed that you reach this conclusion based on this story. My main
> argument was "hey, let's add a clearer api where it makes sense, so things
> are better namespaced".

I'm sorry that you are amazed. It seems I'm unable to bring across my
point.

> People kept nitpicking about the alist example not being good enough, so I
> raise other examples where it's more obvious (file*, buffer*, process*,
> window*) but people keep on going back to the alist example, as if it's
> impossible for you to steelman my argument.

No, not "not good enough". People around here /care/ about the alist
examples, since it's core Lisp terminology. It may be a bit strange,
but it makes programs more readable to people around here. Changing
that is not only a technical question, and if you don't account for
that, strong reactions are to be expected.

This is the point I think you may be missing.

> Anyway Stefan agreed and proposed something about list. I said good idea
> and we can make alias to the old names (that means KEEP the old names), and
> EVENTUALLY (in a far future) deprecate the old names, and what you guys
> deduce from this? That I want to rename the existing API right now.

Right now, eventually -- some care strongly about keeping parts of it.
It's, of course, on them to listen to you -- but it's on you to accept
their position, too.

> This is strawmaning my position, I believe you wanted me to have this
> position because you felt threatened by change.

This old saw. "You're just hostile to change". Please don't. I know
that from other discussions of this kind (believe me, I've witnessed
quite a few) and it is... not constructive.

> > And when people react ("hell, no!"), you're offended and drive deeper
> > in your denial of the "other side's" points.
> >
> 
> It looks like you never consider that I'm not denying the other side's
> point, I'm saying they are not relevant to my argument.

See above.

> IMHO valid rebuttals to my argument would have been:
> 
> - It's too much work.
> - The supposed advantages are not demonstrated.
> - It will create two APIs to maintain (even tho they would only be aliases
> but still a valid argument).
> 
> But certainly not:
> 
> - look, some parts of the string library in C does not follow this so your
> idea is not valid
> - emacs lisp is not namespaced because that is how we filter smarter people
> - if we start namespaceing one api then we will end up with math.+ because
> it's impossible to apply your idea in a sane way

So it's you who fixes what a "valid rebuttal" is? That's not the way
how negotiations work.

> Of course I also strawman your arguments here, but you'd get my point.
> Address the center of the target, not its periphery.

As defined by whom?

Cheers
-- tomás

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature