Re: Strange change in bytecmop.el

[David Kastrup]

Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:

> On 7/26/05, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I really think that this is one change that we are better off without.
>
> I didn't propose it, so I'm hardly going to enter a fight for it. I
> just happen to think is not only not as outrageous as you made it
> sound (when you said "This is so backwards that I consider it
> repulsive."), but I even think that could be useful.

Well, we have to agree to disagree, then.  I can see no even slightly
relevant political advantages for this (I am apparently in
disagreement with Richard here, even given rather similar goals), and
it adds no new functionality whatsoever, at the cost of backward
incompatibilities.

If there are no new points to make, I suggest we all just wait with
baited breath what Richard will decide, and then either of us will
have the opportunity to be exasperated.  Though it does not sound like
you in particular would mind much either which way.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum