Re: [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)

Hello, I answered you privately about this kind of false assumptions and projections. (I have an education) On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:38 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote: > > a middle ground about/with silliness? there is none, for people in their > right mind; should people really find/force > > themselves into conciliation about non-sense? I don't think so and > mostly; I have no say about deprecating that; > > but is that a priority? does it harm anyone? someone have died from > backtick infection, it must be according to some? > > and so on. Don't see where there is a heated topic; solely a reminder > about reality and facts. > > > What would a happy medium be? backticks working 50% of the time? > > This is like someone being pregnant, either you are or you are not there > is > > no half pregnant. Either backticks work like they have in shells for > decades > > or they don't work. What's the point of deprecating them without a plan > to > > remove them? A notice without future action is a bad idea, as it sets > > standard that some deprecation messages will not be acted upon. > > Well, those are exactly the opposite of the types of responses I had hoped > for. > > Responses that ignore the concerns of others. Responses that (implicitly?) > insult the intelligence of others. And responses that can only see things > from one myopic perspective. > > These responses highlight perfectly why discussions on this list are so > contentious. > > -Mike