Phil,
> > Do we have to obey every and all suggestions?
> > Taking the "community" argument for one-sided use is akin to a famous
> > joke on "communism".[1]
> >
> We need to *genuinely listen* - that means taking the feedback from
> the community into account as we develop the code. The referenc
On 2/4/11 9:04 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:15:29PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 2/3/11 7:18 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:11:19PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
[...]
>>> It seems the t
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:15:29PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 2/3/11 7:18 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:11:19PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> >> [...]
> > It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API de
Hi.
> >> [...]
> > It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> > to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting ideas. I guess some
> > of these ideas will change again our view and we will converge
> > (hopefully not throwing an exception ou
Le 04/02/2011 01:18, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:11:19PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> [...]
> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> to be fruitful, and it starts well with intere
On 4 February 2011 01:15, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 2/3/11 7:18 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:11:19PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>> [...]
>> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
>
On 2/3/11 7:18 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:11:19PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> [...]
> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:11:19PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> [...]
> >>> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> >>> to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting ideas. I guess some
> >>> of these ideas wil
On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
[...]
>>> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
>>> to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting ideas. I guess some
>>> of these ideas will change again our view and we will converge
>>> (hopefully not throwin
> >> [...]
> >
> > It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> > to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting ideas. I guess some
> > of these ideas will change again our view and we will converge
> > (hopefully not throwing an exception ourselves ...) to a sta
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 02/02/2011 05:54, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/1/11 2:06 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 01/02/2011 18:22, Jörg Schaible a écrit :
Hi,
Phil Steitz wrote:
> We are in process of redesigning our exceptions hierarchy i
Hello.
>
> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting ideas. I guess some
> of these ideas will change again our view and we will converge
> (hopefully not throwing an exception ourselves ...) to a stable design
>
On 2 February 2011 09:23, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting ideas. I guess some
> of these ideas will change again our view and we will converge
> (hopefully not throwing an exceptio
Le 02/02/2011 05:54, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 2/1/11 2:06 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 01/02/2011 18:22, Jörg Schaible a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
We are in process of redesigning our exceptions hierarchy in [math]
and we could use some input / perspective from ot
14 matches
Mail list logo
