For further consideration...

[Joe Darcy]

Martin Dobmeier wrote:
> Hey everybody,
> 
> I'm sorta missing some kind of explanation why some of the other proposals
> were not considered (e.g. enhanced string literals, enhanced for loop
> iteration control, etc.). Something along the lines of: Do they entail too
> big of a language change? Do they address no real pain points in the
> language? Were they not specified thoroughly enough? In short: What's Sun's
> opinion on those proposals? However, though I've read a lot of the mails
> posted to this list, I might have just missed those things. Anyway, my first
> impression when reading the short list was that it looks almost exactly like
> the language changes that have been floating around on some Sun blogs for
> some time now. I admit that it occured to me that it looks a bit "planned"
> (no offense though). I'm pretty much happy with almost all of the stuff on
> the short list. On the other hand I'd really like to hear some opinions on
> why one proposal was chosen over the other. There are maybe to many to go
> into too much detail, but just a few thoughts?

I have generally at least briefly commented on all the proposals that 
were sent in before the "for further consideration" determination was 
made.  (On the mailing list website you can view the list traffic sorted 
by author.)

I do *not* plan to develop a detailed analysis of why each proposal was 
or was not chosen; however, within a few weeks I do want to post a 
summary of my reactions to the proposal process, including common 
aspects (not properties ;-) of proposals that led them to not be selected.

-Joe