On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 09:13:58PM +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote:

[...]

> > I'm sorry that you are amazed. It seems I'm unable to bring across my
> > point.

> Ah, I get it now. You just want to make me understand how people perceive
> what I say. I agree, it's sad that I appear that way.

Yes, that's it :-)

Thanks for your patience.

> So you're saying the alist example is so core to Lisp terminology that we
> can't infer what I'm getting at (because Lisp *is* alist named that way
> etc) ? Interesting, I didn't consider that indeed.

I didn't see it that way, but yes, you're right.

> > > Anyway Stefan agreed and proposed something about list. I said good idea
> > > and we can make alias to the old names (that means KEEP the old names),
> > and
> > > EVENTUALLY (in a far future) deprecate the old names, and what you guys
> > > deduce from this? That I want to rename the existing API right now.
> >
> > Right now, eventually -- some care strongly about keeping parts of it.
> > It's, of course, on them to listen to you -- but it's on you to accept
> > their position, too.
> >
> 
> True. I guess it's because I only see reactance on their part without even
> considering the idea, and I think I'm able to see where they are talking
> from so I find it unfair that they don't do the same with my argument. But
> that's probably a biased view.

All our views are biased, that's the exciting part of it :-D

> > > This is strawmaning my position, I believe you wanted me to have this
> > > position because you felt threatened by change.
> >
> > This old saw. "You're just hostile to change". Please don't. I know
> > that from other discussions of this kind (believe me, I've witnessed
> > quite a few) and it is... not constructive.
> >
> 
> Yes, you're right sorry I was steaming. The fact that Alan Mackenzie never
> apologized for his ugly behavior left me with a taste of revenge, I'd fix
> that.

Yes. I perceived his reaction as (possibly unnecessarily) sharp, and I
said so.

> > IMHO valid rebuttals to my argument would have been:

[on "valid rebuttals"]

> I'd have worded better. By "valid" I meant "here's a non-exhaustive list of
> arguments that appear to reply to the central argument". If you look at my
> replies I think I always replied to these non-central arguments, but maybe
> I focused too much on pointing out they were not central and people missed
> my answer.

I see.

> > > Of course I also strawman your arguments here, but you'd get my point.
> > > Address the center of the target, not its periphery.
> >
> > As defined by whom?
> 
> 
> Good point, what is central and not is subjective. I guess my belief in
> trying to steelman the other's position resulted in me calling out those
> who didn't my position. I'd correct that.

Hey, thanks a lot.

Cheers
-- tomás