Dave Thomas wrote:
> 
> On May 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> 
>> I think you misunderstand me, James.  I'm suggesting that we debate 
>> the removal of -> from 1.9 but that we hold off on debating any 
>> replacements for -> (such as the fn keyword or Eric's bare blocks) and 
>> save that design discussion for 2.0.  That is, maybe -> gets removed 
>> from 1.9, but that nothing gets added to 1.9 in its place.
> 
> I'm happy to let Matz do whatever it is Matz does--I don't feel he needs 
> us telling him how to manage his releases on top of us telling him how 
> to design his language :)
> 
> 
> Dabe

Well of course--its Matz's language.  But let's engage the debate with 
reasonable expectations.  And I'm just trying to point out that given 
the stage of the 1.9 release, it is probably unreasonable to expect an 
alternative to -> in 1.9.  The most that can reasonably be hoped for, in 
my opinion, is the removal of the -> syntax.

	David Flanagan