Hi, Thanks for allowing everyone the time to look at the RFC changes before > opening the vote ;) >
I didn't think I needed to extend discussion for the changes I made. The substance of the proposal hasn't changed. I just responded to your criticism that there'd need to be a separate type for fixed-precision values. Anyway, your suggestion that a single floating point type is appropriate > for both fixed-precision and floating points seems ill-advised, as is > probably the API you are basing your decisions off of. I am trying to be as thorough as possible in addressing your concerns. That's why, after your last response, I delayed the vote and took the time to work out how each API differentiates between floating point and fixed-precision values. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm trying to force this through. I'm just trying to avoid spinning tires when it seems like we're likely to "agree to disagree." That said, I'm not sure how to respond to you when your feedback is very brief. Simply calling something "ill-advised" doesn't give me a lot to go on, especially when I feel like I provided a pretty rich level of detail in the RFC. I'd like to get a better handle on how we should discuss RFCs. We seem to hit impasses pretty frequently. If you have any specifics on what's helpful for you, I'm happy to adjust my style. Thanks, Adam
