changes to rc

changes to rc

[raymondc]

Chris Siebenmann makes the very sane suggestion:
: the best way to persuade people that it's a good idea is to implement it
: in your version and then post the code so other people can try it out.

I agree wholeheartedly.  We can argue 'til we're blue in the face about
this and other weeny details, and still not get anywhere.  I've learned
that when things get into the blue-in-the-face stage, the way to settle
the argument is to *JUST DO IT*.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose,
but at least you'll know your proposal got a fair shake.

ObRC:  Hey Byron, how close are we to 1.5?
--
Raymond (not rc) Chen (raymondc@microsoft.com)

Re: changes to rc

[Byron Rakitzis]

>ObRC:  Hey Byron, how close are we to 1.5?

Well, as long as you are asking "in public" I may as well answer "in
public". The truth is that I simply cannot offer any promises. I have
made too many guesses and subsequent excuses to even hazard something
now. I think I need a few days' worth of concentration, mainly to
"fault in" all the issues that have been discussed over the last year
or so and to reach some conclusions of my own. So far I have been unable
to do this due to the many things keeping me active in my personal and
professional life. The Network Appliance software is close to release
1.1 now, and once the smoke clears I will possibly have some time to
concentrate on rc. Bug me in a few weeks again..

changes to rc

[Chris Siebenmann]

 I have a suggestion for people proposing changes to rc: the best way to
persuade people that it's a good idea is to implement it in your version
and then post the code so other people can try it out. We can argue for
ages about the merits of various features, but we're doing it in a vaccum.

 For example, I'd imagine that a builtin read would be much more likely
to be accepted if someone produced a good implementation of it (say,
one that respected IFS and so on), and posted said implementation. I know
I'd stick it into my version.

	- cks