> On 10/4/05, rue <googlegroups-mail / magical-cat.org> wrote:
>> Eivind Eklund wrote:
>> > I meant it quite differently and much more positive: As an inclusive
>> > "what I believe to be a majority opinion, at least given an informed
>> > majority" (without excluding anybody.)
>>
>> Insulting those who disagree with you is a brilliant tactic;
>> what better way of convincing them of the strength of your
>> argument?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Please interpret what I write as positively intended unless it is very
> obviously differently intended.
>
> If I mean to call people that disagree clueless or lacking knowledge,
> I write "Those that disagree in this are clueless." or "I believe
> those that disagree with this just lack information" or similar.

I would advise you to err on caution's side: your statement came out
quite aloof and, frankly, offensive. Whether you meant it to is quite
another thing. Typically, as I am sure you know, actually explaining
the scenario (which you have since, but not before) done will work
wonders. That being said...

> If I mean that I believe this to be a majority opinion among those
> that are informed on the topic, I write that I believe this to be a
> majority opinion among those that are informed on the topic and that
> it would be a majority opinion if everybody was informed, or a
> shorthand like ' "what I believe to be a majority opinion, at least
> given an informed majority" (without excluding anybody.)'
>
> And if I write a "we want ..." without a context, that will usually
> mean something "We, this community including you, does in my opinion
> using the knowledge that I have and feel certain enough about to have
> an opinion and with priorities I believe you would agree with, want
> ..."
>
> I hope I've made myself clear now and we can get back to the topic.

Sure. This is certainly something I am interested in and, overall, a
very good idea to attempt to implement for ruby; perhaps this work
might be done in parallel with YARV.

I think the topic and the earlier discussion might have been somewhat
misleading. Your proposal deals with, in particular, the ruby interpreter
(or compiler) itself rather than anything in 'client code', correct?
Maybe point that out clearly just to pacify those among us who, like I,
abhor any sort of explicit typing (in ruby).

> Eivind.

E