From: Trans Date: 2007-08-08T23:52:12+09:00 Subject: Re: #send in 1.9 On Aug 8, 3:59 am, dbl...@rubypal.com wrote: > Hi -- > > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Gregory Brown wrote: > > On 8/7/07, Trans wrote: > > >> On Aug 7, 11:14 am, "Gregory Brown" wrote: > >>> On 8/7/07, Trans wrote: > > >>>>> Then write an RCR and see how it does. I personally prefer send / > >>>>> send! but am fine with send / funcall() > > >>>> See how it does? You're clearly unaware of the current RCR state of > >>>> affairs. > > >>> Please elaborate. I don't see an RCR open for this, or rejected, for > >>> that matter.http://rcrchive.net/ > > >> The RCR system is in a rather anemic state. Honestly, it's not worth > >> the effort. It's better just to bring it up here and hope some of the > >> popular stances filter up. > > > Yeah, you're right. But I think that might be partially our fault for > > never bringing things beyond RubyTalk :) > > As far as I know, all the RCR process needs is people to submit RCRs. > If anyone knows of anything technically wrong with the site, please > let me know. > > I think people were unhappy about Matz's decision to start from > scratch a little while back, but the process only exists in the first > place as a mechanism for Matz to get information and discuss ideas, so > it's really up to him if he wants people to resubmit. I think that's what you technical adepts have never grasped. The problem isn't technical, it's haptic. But we've been threw this -- since the 2nd overhaul of the RCR processes, let alone the third. For whatever reason, my critiques clearly arn't worth the electrons they're transmitted-by. T.