From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Guile foreign object interface Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:31:10 +0200 Message-ID: <83lgsefgk1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1644439317.409814.1488469678720.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1644439317.409814.1488469678720@mail.yahoo.com> <87shmpcibe.fsf@gnu.org> <87r32988we.fsf@pobox.com> <877f40svma.fsf@gnu.org> <87r32867ni.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87lgsfjxhi.fsf@gnu.org> <87o9xb4bmn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87y3webqij.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpbyfo5g.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1dq745q.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1489084324 19413 195.159.176.226 (9 Mar 2017 18:32:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:32:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 09 19:32:00 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cm2r0-0004RR-I5 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 19:31:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35727 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cm2r6-0007pR-Gx for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:32:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42754) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cm2qh-0007nx-Hm for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:31:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cm2qg-0000DE-BC for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:31:39 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51731) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cm2qb-0000AB-1Y; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:31:33 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3461 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cm2qa-0003Sk-Aj; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:31:32 -0500 In-reply-to: <87d1dq745q.fsf@gnu.org> (ludo@gnu.org) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:13462 Archived-At: > From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:26:09 +0100 > > > FYI, I've communicated (and occasionally disagreed) with David for > > many years, and I can assure you that you see something that simply > > isn't there. He sometimes uses such "colorful" descriptions to make a > > point more clear, that's all. People should be allowed to use their > > personal style when writing, without being reprimanded, IMO. > > I’m all for personal style, but I’m against passive-aggressive or downright > aggressive style. That's what I'm trying to tell you: there's no aggression. I once thought like you, but experience of communicating with David taught me I was wrong. > The problem is not whether the person who writes is well-meaning or not; > the problem is how others perceive it. I'm saying that you are reading into David's words something that isn't there, not only in meaning, but also not in form. You are misinterpreting his words, which might not be surprising, given that we all are trying to communicate in a language that is not our first one. Things might sound aggressive when they really aren't. > If I, as an old-timer and maintainer, feel attacked when reading > these messages I don't see why you should feel attacked. FWIW, I see no attack in David's messages. He's opinionated, that's for sure. But there's a difference between that and an attack. > We’d be doing a disservice to our group by sending the message that it’s > OK to be harsh to others. Indeed, we would. But there's nothing particularly harsh in David's messages. I think it would make this list friendlier if people's words are not taken as an attack just because they disagree with the project leaders. We should be able to disagree and still stay colleagues in our common quest.