Automatic Resource Management, V.2

Neal Gafter neal at
Mon Apr 20 09:39:21 PDT 2009

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at> wrote:

>> I am disappointed to see that this revision addresses none of the
>> ergonomic issues reported earlier, not even those that were identified in
>> the previous ARM proposal years ago and for which a solution was promised in
>> the revision.
> I am sorry you're disappointed. I do believe I addressed all the
> substantive issues that you raised:

By "addressed", you appear to mean the specification intentionally does
nothing about them, and the prose reinforces the point that those issues
have not been reflected in changes to the spec.  While each issue may be in
the excluded 20% of an 80-20 solution, .80*.80*.80*.80 = .41 (i.e. we have a
41% solution).

More information about the coin-dev mailing list