From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2003-12-02T12:02:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby2 RCR (was Re: Constants, class variables and the cbase field)

Hi,

In message "Re: Ruby2 RCR (was Re: Constants, class variables and the cbase field)"
    on 03/12/02, "T. Onoma" <transami@runbox.com> writes:

|3. My last point is a bit harder for me to come out and say, because I do not 
|want to come across sounding "sacreligious", for a lack of a better term. I 
|am not presenting this to point fingers, or any such address. I am only 
|asking for an honest answer to "why?", and to point out that it furthers what 
|I have said above.  -- I recently submitted an RCR on the Garden, and you, 
|matz, rejected it within moments of my posting. In fact it was rejected so 
|quickly that your reply wasn't even complete, but was chomped off half-way 
|down, so that I had to come back to the mailing list and say, "what, did you 
|say?" In the course of that thread, and my constant proding for a good reason 
|for rejection, I was finally told that my idea was not good because the whole 
|notion was simply bad programming. Well, the "funny" thing about this, is 
|that "my idea" wasn't my idea. Rather it was your idea (or at best, one of 
|your -dev compatriots), because the idea is listed in Ruby's latest source as 
|TODO. Why would you reject an idea that you had already planned to do? It 
|dosen't make sense. There may be good reasons and I'm not going to speculate 
|on the matter, beyond the fact that it is just more evidence that we need to 
|address the ideas above, becuase obviously the current route is becoming a 
|burden for our beloved matz.

Which one you you feel I reject?  I remember two of your "proposals":
inferring duck typing, and method combination with redefining and
"superwrap".  I said something negative for the former.  But I didn't
officially reject either.  Sorry if you feel rejected from me.

							matz.