From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, NICE_REPLY_A,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16924 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2023 01:31:13 -0000 Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 28 Jun 2023 01:31:13 -0000 Received: from mail.posixcafe.org ([45.76.19.58]) by 9front; Tue Jun 27 21:28:13 -0400 2023 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=posixcafe.org; s=20200506; t=1687915833; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TpyIMbTyK6GTVwxq6emLi/G5AfVvf620SyhNm8yfHc0=; b=RlR9V9Pz/rYqnZ2OUA17hojhAC1Qzqfegq39VXypLjpf17zmEA3WVxC82a+xAe8wrlI112 IXq2AIlxhRrbkJOyWFdHYIQOOdCBkD4DPaK58x3ykyr3trxIjKLqk1+argu25RzSfmvUkl NABoDqwH5kuOtiD6t6lITwi235H64QE= Received: from [192.168.168.123] ( [207.45.82.38]) by mail.posixcafe.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 2bf282d0 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for <9front@9front.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:30:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:28:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Content-Language: en-US To: 9front@9front.org References: <5AE61BE6BDF465DE96BF0C6BEF9C022B@wopr.sciops.net> From: Jacob Moody In-Reply-To: <5AE61BE6BDF465DE96BF0C6BEF9C022B@wopr.sciops.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: content-addressed replication-aware DOM control Subject: Re: [9front] Re: cc: support binary constants and refactor Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk On 6/27/23 19:45, qwx@sciops.net wrote: > On Wed Jun 28 02:17:19 +0200 2023, moody@mail.posixcafe.org wrote: >> On 6/27/23 16:57, qwx@sciops.net wrote: >>> Thanks; frankly I'm asking because I'm then a bit sceptical as to the >>> utility of this. What I mean is that there are plenty of deficiencies >>> in C, but this seems like minor syntactic sugar; what else is it >>> alright to add, even if we don't have to care about compatibility etc? >>> But it's already in the tree, and I guess that's similar to adding >>> rc(1) features or syntax, and I don't complain about that, so >>> whatever. I'm not sure I'm making sense here. >>> >> >> It seems your bar for useful is "fixing a deficiency in C". >> My bar for this was: standard, cheap and something I have found myself reaching for. >> I got used to having it around in go. >> That should answer your question for what I consider "fine to add". >> >> If my thinking here is incorrect we can revert and keep just the bugfix, things >> are not final because they get put in tree. > > There's no need to revert anything, I was just wondering what the > rationale was; I haven't seen discussions about it. If it sounded > like an attack, I apologize. I didn't view it as an attack. We just seem to disagree on how useful the feature is. That's totally fine, but it's one of those things that you can't really convince each other about, you either see yourself using it or not. It's at this point I offer to revert to see if my opinion is not in line with the majority here. I don't view that as a bad thing, these types of checks on what we add are good, reverts are cheap, shit happens. This patch was implemented, discussed and committed while hanging out on the jitsi last weekend. I don't know what the reasonable "airing" of ideas are before I just commit. I generally consider anything that I run past cinap good enough, and then just revert later if more people disagree then not. If there are other criteria I should hold myself to, let me know. Clearly something has to change because I have a pattern now of getting called out to explain my thinking under skepticism that I fucked up.