A disclaimer or two for Optional

Remi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Wed Oct 23 10:08:26 PDT 2013

On 10/23/2013 04:47 PM, Tim Peierls wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com 
> <mailto:brian.goetz at oracle.com>> wrote:
>     They are more likely to behave, but the special pleading has two
>     motivations, only one of which is addressed above:
>      - discourage users from doing wrong things
>      - provide cover so that when we break code that does wrong
>     things, they were adequately warned 
>     ...
>     In a perfect world, the visitor from Flatland would show up and
>     lay the entire future out for us.  We're a few days from Public
>     Review; we're in "better than nothing" territory here.
> Isn't this a little like putting a warning about the dangers of 
> addictive drugs only on the methadone because you don't have time to 
> post general warnings about the harder drugs? Optional users are 
> already in treatment. There's not much cover if you have to say, "You 
> should have read the warning we clearly posted in the rehab clinic," 
> to users still on the street.
> If it would take more time to *not* add this disclaimer, then never 
> mind. Otherwise, there are better uses of the few days remaining.
> --tim

Given the previous discussions, there is also a good chance that 
Optional became the new heroine.


More information about the lambda-libs-spec-experts mailing list