We, of course, should try to avoid user confusion if it will be a big issue.
But I don't see any here.
Also, 20 years experience does not necessarily a good programmer make, nor an expert in other programmers.
--
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Sherif Ramadan theanomaly.is@gmail.com wrote:
null
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds ajf@ajf.me:
We, of course, should try to avoid user confusion if it will be a big issue.
But I don't see any here.
I said it's small and the fix is small also. Big issue, big fix, small
issue, small fix. Understand?
Also, 20 years experience does not necessarily a good programmer make, nor
an expert in other programmers.
It's not sufficient but neccessary.
--
Alex Aulbach
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds ajf@ajf.me:
We, of course, should try to avoid user confusion if it will be a big issue.
But I don't see any here.
I said it's small and the fix is small also. Big issue, big fix, small
issue, small fix. Understand?Also, 20 years experience does not necessarily a good programmer make, nor
an expert in other programmers.
It's not sufficient but neccessary.
-
It's not a small fix, you're introducing a whole new function syntax
for generators, which I think is needless duplication. Plus it's more
work, we now have to make special functions that can ONLY be used as
generators and check at compile-time that they are generators and not
functions. -
It's not necessary. There are great programmers who have only been at
it for 10 or 5 years. And there are terrible programmers who have been
at it for decades.
Also, please let us not devolve into asinine elitism. I would like to
hope this mailing list's members are better than that.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/