On Dec 16, 2007, "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is obvious that you misunderstood what I want, and how intrusive >> the approach is. > Yes Alexandre, everyone who disagrees with you must not understand! My conclusion is not based on disagreement, but rather on the faulty arguments presented during the discussion. For example, when you took the argument that every transformation had effects on debug information, and used that to conclude that every transformation would need difficult changes to generate correct debug information, you left out from your reasoning a major strength of the design, that I had mentioned in the e-mail you responded to: that the optimizers already perform the transformations we need to keep debug information accurate. So, by missing or misunderstanding an essential part of the thought process that went into the design, you came to a false conclusion about it. > That's really the problem here. > None of us understand but you. I guess I'm to blame, for having naïvely put the code out without as much as a design and goals document, such that people started looking at it without actually understanding what it was about, and at the same time taking conclusions about it based on hunches rather than on solid logical grounds. At this point, we have a scenario in which people have already jumped to their conclusions, and whatever I say requires a much higher threshold to be listened to and accepted. It's quite unfortunate that psychological factors take such a large role in the making of technical decisions, and I naïvely assumed this wouldn't raise so much rejection, for being such a simple and well thought-out design. Oh, well... Something to avoid next time... -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
