Re: master 37889523278: Add new `swap` macro and use it

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:59:26 +0000
> From: Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>
> cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> >> Of course, why would you do so, with a guiding principle that everyone 
> >> is wrong?
> >
> > This is again a kind of remark that I respectfully request you to avoid. 
> > It adds nothing to your arguments, it just makes it harder for your 
> > opponents to stay technical in their responses.
> 
> The problem is the word "stay".  The objections raised in this thread 
> have, from the onset, never been technical, although they may have looked 
> like technical ones.

What your opponents do is another matter.  We can (and do) ask
everyone to stay technical, but we can only control what we do
ourselves.  However, if you abandon staying technical, you lose the
privilege of demanding that others stay technical.

> The first technical question you asked was "Did 
> Stefan's change break some build?  If so, which build became broken and 
> why?", to which you got the following reply:

You don't need to remind me this discussion: I have, and still am, a
part of it.

> That very much looks like a technical objection.  But it's in fact a 
> fabricated one.

If you think that, post the facts that show those objections are
invalid, but do it in technical terms.  People who read what you write
can make up their own minds regarding the level of "fabrication";
leave it to them, and you will have avoided the need to reprimand you
for the hostile style.

> The other technical objections were of the same level, and were debunked 
> one after the other.

Debunking them on technical terms is all that's needed.  Please leave
the judgment to others, and keep yours to yourself.  Expressing that
judgment explicitly never helps.

> You, Stefan and me wasted several hours doing that in this absurdly
> long thread.

Please leave the worry about our wasted time to us.  We are grown-ups,
and can take care of this just fine, thank you.  Unless you haven't
noticed, I made my conclusions from this argument long ago, and I'm
sure Stefan did as well.  From my POV a 'swap' macro is a go, provided
that it uses 'typeof' where itr is supported, and falls back to
__typeof__ otherwise.

> Under such circumstances, a technical and constructive discussion is 
> simply impossible.

Then my next recommendation is to stop arguing once you lost all hope
to stay technical.

> What remains now is something that looks like a threat: "if __typeof__ is 
> to be used unconditionally, I will simply leave".

Again, please leave these aspects to Stefan and myself: that's part of
our job here.

> With all due respect, IMO, it's that attitude that should be reprimanded, 
> not the possibly imperfect words I used to speak out against it.

I do, and will continue to do, both.