On 13 April 2012 09:27, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > I think my words above should be read in their own context, where > their true meaning can be fully appreciated. Then, one may be able to > appreciate that: > > * Saying "I don't think X is important, so I am against it and you > should spend your free time in Y." and "Of course, you are free to > spend your time in whatever you want." is not logically consistent. > The only choices offered are Y or nothing.
Joe didn't say *you* should spend your time on Y, he suggested something he thought was more important, and he said *he'd* turn off colour output which is not the same as saying it shouldn't be added. > * A real choice is offered by the paragraph above which changes the > statement to "I don't think X is important, and you should use spend > your free time on Y, but I am not against Y, so patches welcome." That's how I read Joe's mail. There's no reason for this discussion to get heated, we're all working towards the same goal. > * In the paragraph above, you also seem to have missed the irony that > the example I chose as "not important" are small diagnostic issues, on > which I (among very very few) have spent significant effort in the > recent years. I was hoping that this irony would help the reader to > understand that the example is not meant to be taken seriously, and it > is only there to demonstrate the previous logical inconsistency. I'm afraid I missed that irony too, despite being well aware of all the great work you've done on those sort of diagnostics. I was about to reply saying the mixing up "." and "->" is not obscure at all. Irony and subtly don't work by email.
