On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Chad Fowler wrote:

> Certainly not all choices are based on tangible benefit.  But the
> choice to change a language that thousands of people are using should
> hopefully be backed by some kind of tangible benefit.

Several RCR I've submitted, and that were accepted, weren't backed by any
particularly more tangible benefits... This is the first I'm asked for
particularly good background documentation on how the RCR would be useful
and all, and this is not even an official RCR yet!

Yet I agree that the proposal would deserve an actual code example; it's
just that I haven't thought about a good enough one yet, according to my
standards for good examples. I only had thought that the proposal could
stand by itself without that.

Besides, like I said, I want to design the proposal so that almost (99.9%)
everyone can still use "module" and "class" in exactly the same way if
they want to. It's not like I want to break the language. It should break
many less programs than when the float literal syntax was changed.

> If it's true that the current choices were made based on idealism and
> yours are as well, they cancel each other out.

Yeah right. It's not as simple as that.

> Still interested in hearing a tangible reason to make the change
> (maybe an example of where real MI would be helpful?), Chad

I'll try to find something for you.

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju