I think the loose consensus I've picked up from people in this thread is that
the ability to tersely specify a complementary subset of columns is something
that is simple enough and wouldn't hurt us to have it but that its utility is
limited such that a lot of people wouldn't want to do the work to implement it
either.
Eric B. Ridge wrote:
> Anyways, looks like it might be an uphill battle to get the idea accepted
> (let alone any code I write!), but I ain't givin' up just yet.
I think this is the bottom line here.
The real question to ask ourselves is, if Eric Ridge is willing to do all the
work to implement this feature, and the code quality is up to the community
standards and doesn't break anything else, then will the code be accepted?
Its one thing to argue whether a new small feature is useful enough to go to the
trouble to implement, and its another thing to argue whether that feature is
harmful enough to reject a free working implementation (of otherwise conforming
code quality) from someone who has already gone to the trouble to implement it.
Eric, if you want to implement this, I say more power to you, and I will use it.
-- Darren Duncan
