From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:52:50 +0200 From: Lucio De Re To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20110405045250.GF2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20110403211333.GA3905@dinah> <20110403211652.GA5977@dinah> <20110403223031.GA27441@dinah> <20110404172728.GA2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za> <20110404201105.GC2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za> <4b4fc604b6df4670a19fe8132959dea4@brasstown.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4b4fc604b6df4670a19fe8132959dea4@brasstown.quanstro.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [9fans] Go Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: c9710d06-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 04:33:29PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > [ ... ] > then you can get rid of the old definitions in /*/include/u.h > and declare a flag day. having both seems wrong to me. > you might as well just do a local hack for the go stuff at that > point. > > the hard part is convincing everyone that this large > patch is worth the pain. > > i think it is, but maybe there's something i'm not > thinking of, or a different point of view. > Personally, I like the suggestion, but I think flag days in Plan 9 are best reserved for larger issues than the name of a handful of type definitions. The old type names might have been a bad choice (or a good choice, but contrary to popular opinion), but they do not need to go away, perhaps they can just be deprecated. I'm sure the label "wrong" is too strong. ++L