Re: [TCLCORE] Unicode in Tcl 9 - a commentary and critique

[Rolf A. <tcl...@po...>]

"Kevin Walzer" <kw-...@pu...> writes:

> On 1/28/23 12:02 PM, Francois Vogel wrote:
>> Le 28/01/2023 à 09:26, apnmbx-public--- via Tcl-Core a écrit :
>>> If you, and through their silence, the TCT have pretty much decided...
>>
>> I have now read several calls on the mailing list for more TCT
>> members to enter this discussion. Taking this for myself, I wanted
>> to precise that my silence (on any topic, BTW) does not mean
>> anything special, especially neither approval nor disapproval.
>>
>> Specifically regarding the topic under discussion, I'm in no way
>> proficient in the encoding matter currently discussed and I refrain
>> from adding noise to the already complicated exchanges. I leave
>> those who know so much more and better than me make the best
>> decisions, enlightened by the entire community. Ashok made a great
>> effort in his summary document, I hope this will be considered and
>> will help moving forward.
>>
>>
> I would echo everything Francois says here. I have mostly been silent
> on these questions because they do not fall within my expertise.

I only partly buy into this argument. Most, if not all, discussions
about this stuff in the last 10 or so weeks are not about details of
implementation (which indeed should have its place in tickets) but how
things work and how they should work from a much higher level.

To explain better what I mean let me take as example the Tcl 9 script
level behaviour of the read and gets commands. Several times I tried to
raise this on tcl-core and Ashok also discuss this in his paper.

After some repetition by me this topic in fact got attention (and in the
meantime even two branches with implementations of alternatives by
Nathan).

But all of the TCT members stayed completely away from this - why is
this? Again, this is not about implementation detail or if this byte
sequence read from a channel with this encoding should result in that
byte sequence if written out to a channel with that encoding. It is about
the semantic of important and familiar commands. I assume you have an
option about that?

Even in cases the "do not fall within my expertise" argument may have
some weight there is another level on which I miss presence and activity
of the TCT members - let's name it moderation. Despite the details it
typically is clearly shows if there is fundamental disagreement.

At that point someone other should try to help sorting things out. 

If a "nobody" like me has a discussion with a TCT member this is a
discussion between unequals (to avoid words like "uphill battle", we
hopefully don't have battles and fights but try to find better
solutions). We lately had a daunting example.

Another thought: We are close to have a first 9.0 beta. Tcl 9.0 has a
longer history with several major contributors but it is obviously true
than Jan has put tremendous work into it within the last year to push
it forward to that "we're close to beta" state. 

But this make him perhaps not the best one to judge about the issues
of the 9.0 changes raised by the early adaptors - here your option and
experience is called, TCT members.

Raising discussion about obviously problematic parts prior to beta
release should be welcome. Unfortunately it feels more like Sisyphus
rolling its stone.

rolf