From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-21 10:34:13
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Matthias Troyer wrote:
>> OK, since I also do not get paid for this, and your criticism is
>> based on a change that you yourself proposed on June 4th, my proposal
>> is to stop the discussion right here, go back to the state of June
>> 4th, where our optimizations were completely decoupled from your
>> archives. That way you will be able to implement the array
>> optimization for the binary archive in the way you like best, and we
>> have our own way. Please confirm and I will do that.
> Honestly, I don't remember the state of things 4 June. And
> I don't remember the character of my complaints. I presume
> that going back would just substitute the original complaints
> for the current ones.
> I've stated my current reservations. I wanted to make them
> known in case someone else might share them or others.
> It seems that I'm the only one who has these views - a
> familiar and comfortable position for me..
For the record, the difficulty is not your iconoclastic viewpoint,
which is almost always useful. The problem we're having is that what
you're complaining about is a situation created, and of whose merit
many of us were convinced, by you.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk