Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 03.02.2017 19:29, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> The objectors do not seem to want compromise - they want comment-cache
> to be wholly abandoned.

It's silly to seek a compromise between implementations. Rather, we 
should discuss hard requirements (with some test cases).

And then we should seek the simplest solution that satisfies all of our 
requirements.

> They object to it for reasons I don't
> understand, despite the fact that it elegantly solves a long standing
> problem that continues to cause pain on a frequent basis.

Elegance is in the eye of the beholder. It certainly doesn't seem 
elegant to me, design-wise.

> If you (or anybody else) could summarize what these objections are, I'd
> be very grateful.

"It introduces a second source of truth" seems like a concise summary.

At best, it'll use more memory than it has to. At worst, we risk 
divergence in the information contained in those sources (so functions 
depending on one or the other will behave in incompatible fashion). That 
means nasty bugs that aren't easy to track down.

> Note that there has been NO constructive criticism of comment-cache.

That's insulting, Alan.

> Nobody is pointing out problems it causes or might cause.

And that's false.