> I care. I want a professional easy to understand and easy to maintain
> that doesn't cause potential conflict with future and past development
> syntax.
I agree with this. The point of my comment was that ISTM that an
arbitrary amount of time can be consumed determining the optimal syntax,
during which Oleg is obligated to continually update his patch without
any guarantee that it will be accepted in anything like its current
form, or at all. If people have strong opinions about the syntax, why
were they not ALL expressed when the proposal was originally laid on the
table? Sure, some people offered opinions, but it doesn't appear that
there was any real consensus, and there certainly wasn't any clear
guidance of the form "this is what you need to do to get your patch
accepted", which leaves everything in limbo and Oleg doing a lot of
extra work to keep updating his patch.
I haven't studied the proposed syntaxes in detail, but ISTM that if
there is no consensus then probably all of the alternatives being
advocated are reasonable. Again, if that's not the case, then let's
eliminate the unreasonable ones and pick one of the remaining choices.
But if committer A thinks that X is the only reasonable options and
committer B thinks that Y is the only reasonable option, does that mean
that the patch just sits there forever, or do we find a way to move
forward?
...Robert
