Re: Code for cond*

[Po Lu]

Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> writes:

>> I am not sure if pointing this out is constructive.
>> Coming from the same crowd or not, the useful arguments
>> should be considered.

It is NEVER useful to claim that:

  "Feature X is not useful.  Let's toss it to the dogs!"

Replace "feature X" with "the children's bread", and no decent person
will disagree.  Yet somehow that is acceptable with ELPA as the dogs.

Whether consciously or not, ELPA has become a repository where code may
be abandoned to bitrot in peace, so when someone on this list produces a
list of reasons he dislikes such and such in support of moving it to
ELPA, what he really means is that his objections are so strong he never
wishes to see it again, but it is not seemly or persuasive to express
such objections without veiling them in euphemisms.  Since this also
avoids causing the proposer too much disappointment, it achieves the
desired goal of frustrating the proposal with the absolute minimum level
of fuss.

I'm sorry if this came out sounding quite harsh, but it is how I view
this farce, and when the ELPA tactic is used against an elderly cancer
patient, it is really beyond the pale.

> Yes but we heard from you that the goal was to replace
> `pcase'. It was the view of two people. The third is not here,
> he is staying low?

Who is "you" here?

> If you say it right out, that is your agenda, so if the goal
> is the replace pcase, we see the install of cond* as a first
> step on that plan.

There is no hidden agenda behind the installation of cond*.