That hash symbol
davi.fol at gmail.com
Fri Mar 25 20:45:54 PDT 2011
I really would have hoped that rather than assuming an asses POV that this list would assume the best without requirement of over-qualification.
You do yourself a disservice by assuming idiocracy.
On 25 Mar 2011, at 22:49, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 2:07 PM, David Foley wrote:
>> That's something I for one would welcome, and I'm sure others too. I'd like to see some traction on this
> I don't want to spend too much time on custom etiquette.
> Also I don't want to be a jerk about it, but your post both bottom-cites heavily (top-citing without editing is even worse, but please trim; I nag everyone and fail myself, so again don't take this as more than a chance to restate an old USENET rule).
> Another thing: you'd like to see some traction on "this", my favorite pronoun. Which "this"? If you don't like # for sharp functions, then we're back to inventing syntax. That requires some care not to walk right into (fairly well-known, but trickier due to ASI and "lack of ASI where you expected it") grammatical ambiguities.
> Throwing up ideas and letting the grammarians debug them on the list is possible and might be fun but (in my view; I'm not the list moderator, just admin -- we have no moderator) it's not a good use of the list or all our time.
> So: top-cite and trim carefully, avoid pronoun trouble, and try to make concrete proposals where (if they involve new syntax) you've worked through some of the consequences to avoid the obvious gotchas.
> This may be too much to ask, but I'll ask for it anyway. It ought not cause a swerve into "OMG fascist list rules". But some of us old timers expect at least the old netiquette rules to apply still. Follow them and the Crocken may stay peacefully asleep.
More information about the es-discuss