Bill,
just to let you know, I used "take it or leave it" in the context to state that it's your prerogative to decide if you
would listen to my arguments about the consistency problem in your proposal or not. I cannot, and for that matter don't
want to, force you to accept my arguments. I wrote it in a reaction to our previous exchange:
> Marek: I wonder if you really don't see that there actually was a compromise you had to make too? You opted for
simplicity in class hierarchy and sacrificed fluent API consistency. ...
> Bill: No, I don't see it. ...
If you took is as me suggesting that the discussion is over and we are definitely going in my direction, I am sorry,
that's not what I meant. Now I can see that my choice of the phrase was not fortunate. For that I apologize. As with any
other expert in our EG, I certainly value your inputs even if I might not share the same opinion occasionally. Diversity
in a discussion is a good thing.
Marek
On 08/25/2011 04:23 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
> As for Marek's "take it or leave it" ultimatum, I've decided to take the "leave it" option and take a long break from
> suggesting any more API modifications or additions. There's really a lot of other things I need to get done and you all
> seem pretty set on continuing down the direction you're taking. Good luck!