[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: picking names for functions




On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Thomas Lord wrote:

> At some point (and I'm seeing this in my recent
> sampling of the thread), discussions like this FAIL
> in the specific way of devolving into little more
> than informal rehearsals of "highlighted axioms and
> theorems of standard Unicode" -- people wind up
> doing nothing other than reciting well-known dialects
> and explaining to one another, yet again, that
> unicode programming is tricky to do well and that
> there is no single, simple, universal Right Thing.

I believe that Thomas is right here.  Collectively,
we really have pretty much made all the points we
need to make. Repeating them further is pretty pointless,
and at some point becomes merely boorish.

So, from now on...  can we stick to *new* points only?
When we're out of those, the discussion is pretty much
over and all that remains, as Thomas pointed out, is
the committee vote. I'll stop beating the drum about
grapheme-characters, not because I believe I've convinced
anyone, but because I can't think of anything new to
say about them that I haven't already said.  Other
folks, assess your own technical arguments.  If you've
already said what you know, then ... well, congratulations
on finishing your exposition, and it's time to gather
on the sidelines and wait for the committee vote.

Otherwise, you must have been loafing!  Stand up and
finish your exposition already, and *then* join us on
the sidelines to wait for the committee vote.

				Bear