From: Stewart, Robert (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 17:03:36
From: David Abrahams [mailto:david.abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> I'm curious about something. Of all the people with whom
> you've corresponded
> about using operator in format, what percentage have
> immediately responded
> positively to your view of operator as an analogy for projection?
> I think op has some clear technical merits, but unless my
> antennae are
> seriously mistuned, almost noboone thinks that it makes any sort of
> "intuitive sense"... and that's not something you'll be able
> to convince
> people of. It's like a joke: either they get it, or they
> don't. If they
Count me among those that find it "not counterintuitive." How's that for
waffling? Seriously, it doesn't confuse me; neither does it enthuse me.
It's fine and I would have no qualms about its acceptance, but I'm not going
to cry if it's dropped.
Susquehanna International Group, LLP
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk