On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:24:06 PM UTC-6, Andrew Barnert wrote:
The decision was discussed at the time, and all the pros and cons were hashed out. If you're not willing to read that discussion, your opinion that the change was a mistake is worth exactly as much as that of any individual user who asked for the change.
hi Andrew, I am satisfied that the problem is well understood and that we no longer need to discuss the root cause, nor the computer science of trying to represent numbers in memory that are not representable. I admire you guys too much to keep going with the previous discussion. I am completely satisfied with Guido's last answer (thank you, by the way), and I look forward to seeing how the community will address the main issue.
In response to your statement quoted above, I would like to suggest seeing if there might be any way you could think of wording that, in future dialogue? The response quoted above is not only another *ad hominem* attack, it is also a straw man attack. Your presumption that I am unwilling to read the discussion archive is unfounded and faulty thinking. In fact, I began a thorough attempt to understand the previous discussion as soon as I discovered the need through Steven's revelation last evening. In fact, I am very interested in the discussion which led to the decision in question. I not only find it interesting philosophically I also am interested in who was involved and how they were thinking at the time. Of course none of that changes my opinion at this time that the decision was not correct. I don't fully know yet, but I think it was made the way many decisions are made by young men; like lightning, ---shortest path to ground. It would be helpful going forward in future discussions with me that you presume not to put words in my mouth, nor to presume to know how I think or feel, nor presume to attack my character or my person. I would really appreciate it. Kind regards, marcus