river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Space/outrigger suggestions
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:49:14 GMT
I can understand your confusion! I don't feel like we have opposing views.
Rather we have a few proposals for differing levels of use of generics and a
bunch of concerns around each proposal relating to:

(1) How beneficial they are versus cost of implementation.
(2) All the dark corners we create as the result of unclear specs or
effectiveness of generics at runtime or user expectations.
(3) Whether or not a meaningful set of common cases could be tackled.

What one writes up from that I'm not sure. Maybe the various proposals and
the comments in respect of each....



On 20 December 2010 13:36, Sim IJskes - QCG <sim@qcg.nl> wrote:

> On 12/20/2010 08:50 AM, Peter wrote:
>> I hope we can now refocus and all work together reimplementing
>> Outrigger based on what we can agree on, rather than be distracted by
>> one thing we can't.
> I'm not sure to which issue we cannot agree on. I'm not even clear on which
> are the opposing views. I would like to consolidate the current consensus in
> a document for the website, even if it means that we have to document two
> opposing views. Generics is not going away as a topic, so we better document
> what we have right now.
> Anybody in support for this method?
> Gr. Sim

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message