Re: Review results for "format"

From: mfdylan (dylan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 20:28:57

--- In boost_at_y..., Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> One issue that I would like to re-emphasize is "minimality of
> interface":  The full Open Group syntax for argument reordering
> ("%1$d, %2$d" if I read my Linux man page correctly) does not
> appear to me as significantly more clumsy than "%1 %2", and of
> course, the full Open Group syntax has a lot more features.  
Similarly,
> I see no compelling reason to provide e.g. both   format("xxx", a, 
b)
> and format("xxx") % a % b  syntax variants:  Make an informed
> decision, document the rationale, say what the other option was,
> and why it wasn't chosen.
> 
Hmm, there's still a *lot* of disagreement re this whole issue, how 
can you say "it will be accepted" when there's still some fairly 
major interface and implementation decisions to be made?  I'm almost 
tempted to say we need to poll for votes for some of the most 
contentious points.

Dylan