> > 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.
Ah, I get it now. You just want to make me understand how people perceive what I say. I agree, it's sad that I appear that way.
> 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.
So you're saying the alist example is so core to Lisp terminology that we can't infer what I'm getting at (because Lisp *is* alist named that way etc) ? Interesting, I didn't consider that indeed.
> 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.
True. I guess it's because I only see reactance on their part without even considering the idea, and I think I'm able to see where they are talking from so I find it unfair that they don't do the same with my argument. But that's probably a biased view.
> 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.
Yes, you're right sorry I was steaming. The fact that Alan Mackenzie never apologized for his ugly behavior left me with a taste of revenge, I'd fix that.
> 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.
I'd have worded better. By "valid" I meant "here's a non-exhaustive list of arguments that appear to reply to the central argument". If you look at my replies I think I always replied to these non-central arguments, but maybe I focused too much on pointing out they were not central and people missed my answer.
> 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?
Good point, what is central and not is subjective. I guess my belief in trying to steelman the other's position resulted in me calling out those who didn't my position. I'd correct that.
Kind regards,
Philippe