On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 13:06, Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Ville,
> your answer shows a sufficient amount of bad faith, I find.

I have the exact same thoughts about your dismissal of concerns about
deployment and editing
of source code as "culture wars".

> I think
> you known exactly what I meant with technical difficulties. But you
> prefer just to spit me again with these arguments about which I
> explicitly didn't wanted to hear, again and again.

I fail to see what gives you the authority to describe my feedback as
"spitting". I have no idea what you mean
by technical difficulties, and I'm happy to agree to disagree on what
difficulties are considered technical.

But fine. If you wish to shut your eyes about anything besides the
implementation and specification aspects of this,
go ahead. You need to describe how these new punctuators fit into
operator precedence, and add them as alternative
spellings of some existing semantic descriptions. Overall, I think
there's not much specification difficulty, at least not for things
that are just alternate spellings. I don't know whether you envision
adding new operators, which is then a completely
different ballgame, because in order to evaluate the difficulty of
that, we'd need to know what the intended semantics
are.

Based on how you deal with comments related to this idea, especially
when they're not exactly the comments
you wished to have, I recommend against wasting committee time on
this. Discussing those matters is inevitable,
and trying to cover just a subset of the problems in this problem
space while ignoring the others isn't going to
get us anywhere.