Feedback and comments on ARM proposal - resend

[Neal Gafter]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com> wrote:
> With all due respect, I don't see a lot of people disagreeing; I see one
> person disagreeing vociferously.  For the most part, others are discussing
> the details to make sure that we do a good job on important cases.

Is "one person disagreeing" something like "one hand clapping"?

If this was directed at me, I'm not sure what you feel I was
disagreeing about.  I was analyzing the proposal's interactions with
other language features (iteration, in this case), noting issues, and
making specific suggestions to address them.  I find this comment
offensive, especially considering your disagreement with Howard and
Jeremy about declaration scope rather than a new block-structured
statement form, or with me and Peter and Stefan about whether Lock is
an important use case, or with me and Bob Lee about whether suppressed
exceptions be handled by clients, etc.  I think we can respectfully
discuss the issues while moving the process forward without making it
personal.

I'm still hoping to see a revision of the proposal that incorporates
the changes you suggested be considered: the changes to the Disposable
interface, support for an expression as well as a declaration, a
variation to suppress the exception on close, and recording suppressed
exceptions.  When do you anticipate a refinement of the proposal will
include these for further analysis?