[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Proposals that didn't work (was Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers)
- From: Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@...>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:35:17 +0200
On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote:
> I, for one, would like to know what you proposed, tried out, rejected and
> why it was rejected. Yes, it was a failure, but if you document it, then
> others can learn why that "cool idea" might not have been such a "cool
> idea".
Tangentially related:
"Document the roads not taken. In order to overcome the Law of the Instrument and prevent revisiting the same ground in the future, document what you’re not doing and why you’re not doing it.”
When the solution is the problem
How to prevent over-engineering & useless features in software
https://medium.com/p/50adb9f6caf9
- References:
- Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers, Coroutines
- Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers, Tony Papadimitriou
- Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers, Coroutines
- Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers, steve donovan
- Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers, Andrew Starks
- Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers, Coroutines
- Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers, Andrew Starks
- Proposals that didn't work (was Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers), Sean Conner
- Prev by Date:
Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers
- Next by Date:
Re: Proposals that didn't work (was Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers)
- Previous by thread:
Proposals that didn't work (was Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers)
- Next by thread:
Re: Proposals that didn't work (was Re: Proposal: allow @, $, !, and ? in Lua identifiers)
- Index(es):