>
> > > That's it. Although my feeling is that your (Alan) reaction was too
> > > sharp, I also feel that you, Philippe, disregard the cultural aspects
> > > of your proposal [...]
>
> > I'm amazed that you reach this conclusion based on this story. My main
> > argument was "hey, let's add a clearer api where it makes sense, so
> things
> > are better namespaced".
>
> 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.



> > People kept nitpicking about the alist example not being good enough, so
> I
> > raise other examples where it's more obvious (file*, buffer*, process*,
> > window*) but people keep on going back to the alist example, as if it's
> > impossible for you to steelman my argument.
>
> No, not "not good enough". People around here /care/ about the alist
> examples, since it's core Lisp terminology. It may be a bit strange,
> but it makes programs more readable to people around here. Changing
> that is not only a technical question, and if you don't account for
> that, strong reactions are to be expected.
>
> This is the point I think you may be missing.
>

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.



> > 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.



> > 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.


> IMHO valid rebuttals to my argument would have been:
> >
> > - It's too much work.
> > - The supposed advantages are not demonstrated.
> > - It will create two APIs to maintain (even tho they would only be
> aliases
> > but still a valid argument).
> >
> > But certainly not:
> >
> > - look, some parts of the string library in C does not follow this so
> your
> > idea is not valid
> > - emacs lisp is not namespaced because that is how we filter smarter
> people
> > - if we start namespaceing one api then we will end up with math.+
> because
> > it's impossible to apply your idea in a sane way
>
> So it's you who fixes what a "valid rebuttal" is? That's not the way
> how negotiations work.
>

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.



> > 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.

Kind regards,
Philippe