On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 22:38 Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote:
> > a middle ground about/with silliness? there is none, for people in their > right mind; should people really find/force > > themselves into conciliation about non-sense? I don't think so and > mostly; I have no say about deprecating that; > > but is that a priority? does it harm anyone? someone have died from > backtick infection, it must be according to some? > > and so on. Don't see where there is a heated topic; solely a reminder > about reality and facts. > > > What would a happy medium be? backticks working 50% of the time? > > This is like someone being pregnant, either you are or you are not there > is > > no half pregnant. Either backticks work like they have in shells for > decades > > or they don't work. What's the point of deprecating them without a plan > to > > remove them? A notice without future action is a bad idea, as it sets > > standard that some deprecation messages will not be acted upon. > > Well, those are exactly the opposite of the types of responses I had hoped > for. > Mike, In a parallel universe, where this proposal has never been created and brought up for discussion - backticks would continue to work precisely as they did for twenty years, precisely with the advantages and disadvantages they had the day they were introduced, and this continue being the non-issue that it’s always been. Nobody would be thinking about it, opining about it and let alone quarreling about it. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that parallel universe, and suddenly this thing that bugged nobody for decades becomes a sudden priority for discussion. It’s also not as if we can ignore it either - we’ve seen how that went with short tags. So while I sympathize with the effort to find a compromise - encouraging more of these contentious proposals (by accommodating them at some level) is not the way. The real middle ground is to go for some form of opt-in solution. Whether it’s granular declares, strict mode, P++, editions - this is the only way to diffuse this contention - by rendering it irrelevant - precisely as it should be. Contrary to the perception many here appear to be under, there’s no feasibility question-mark over any of these options - they’re all doable, and even easy to implement. This solution would also not be some band aid until the next out of the blue proposal comes along - but a framework to thoroughly diffuse these types of contention once and for all. Zeev
