From: James Britt <james_b@...>
Date: 2005-10-29T02:38:21+09:00
Subject: Re: "Readability" inflation

why the lucky stiff wrote:
> David A. Black wrote:
> 
>> Over the years and, I think, particularly in recent months, there's
>> been a ton of suggestions for changing Ruby syntax.  The majority
>> involve adding new semantics through new punctuation.  Most of the
>> rest involve some kind of distillation of existing syntax into
>> something smaller.
> 
> 
> So, is your compaint about the suggestions?  Or about Matz' own recent 
> tinkerings with the language?  Because although your overall comments 
> lean toward the first, your specific examples point towards changes Matz 
> has messed with.  Discussions he has encouraged.
> 
> I think suggestions from the audience are harmless.  Matz rarely gives 
> credence to these and even accepted RCRs go untouched for upwards of 5 
> years.  Anyway, I'd hate to silence the crowd, these are our people.  
> These are casual discussions, do they really have the gravity you think 
> they have?

I agree that suggestions and discussion are important, and, with Matz 
calling the shots, there is little risk of any sort of Ruby Community 
Process goofiness.

Also do not believe that David is in any way trying to silence anyone. 
He's offering a voice to a particular point of view, not trying to 
discourage discussion.

James

-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com  - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com  - Playing with Better Toys