[JSR308] Re: Postfix notation for type annotations
tim at peierls.net
Sun Feb 25 14:34:35 EST 2007
On 2/25/07, Neal Gafter <gafter at google.com> wrote:
> I didn't intend this as a complete argument, but on the other hand I also
> didn't intend to be sarcastic. The spec currently takes the approach of
> specifying annotations for each context separately, and I don't remember
> hearing anything that sounded like consensus that this is the right
> approach, though it does appear to be our starting point.
OK, not sarcasm -- though the Dinsdale reference was irresistible -- but by
phrasing it as "15 vs. 1", not only were you reopening the debate (a good
thing) but you seemed to be trying to limit, or at least bias, the terms of
the debate to this narrow point (a bad thing). It might not have been your
intent, but it sounded to me like: "Was there really a consensus that the
current bad way is preferable to the good way that I proposed?"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the JSR308