[dllthomas]

You seem to miss my point. I am not arguing that the move away from upper bounds was correct - I was uncertain at the time and I remain uncertain.

My point was that the comment above was specifically an obvious reference to concerns that had been voiced during that time (and speculation as to why they might have been less relevant to you) - far from an "absurd non-sequitur."

[MustardTiger]

>My point was that the comment above was specifically an obvious reference to concerns that had been voiced during that time

I am aware of that. And again, that in no way contradicts or discredits what I said. Which was that FP complete employees consistently do this. I never said they were the only people who do it. I never said they were the first people to do it. I said they do it. I really do not understand where the confusion is coming from.

[dllthomas]

You keep acting as if the only claim you've made in this entire discussion was that FP Complete employees do not include upper bounds. It's certainly not the case that anything we've been discussing has bearing on that. But that's not an honest characterization of your comments in this thread.

You said (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12058419):

> The tool does not fix real problems. It avoids a real problem, which the authors of the tool created in the first place. The problem does not exist if packages use upper version bounds.

The implicit assertion in the following comments (which I found painfully clear, but maybe you genuinely missed it - surely we read from different contexts) was: Even if the tooling only solves a problem introduced by particular practices, it can be a "real problem" if those practices address a real problem themselves.

[MustardTiger]

You are responding to a strawman, and still trying to pretend it has something to do with me. What I said is what I said, and is what I meant. What you wish I meant has nothing to do with me.

[dllthomas]

I am responding to what you wrote. I quoted it. If I am misunderstanding it, please explain how.

Or you know what, don't. I'm growing convinced that you're not engaging in good faith anywhere in this thread. And if this is going to be regular practice, please GTFO of the Haskell community.

[MustardTiger]

The hypocrisy you just displayed is almost unbelievable.

[dllthomas]

There is no hypocrisy.

I am engaging in good faith, as I have always done. I have done so under this same name, here, on r/haskell, on haskell-cafe and haskell-beginners, on #haskell, and in person.

I said that if you are engaged in bad faith, and if you will persist in doing so, you need to GTFO. I stand by that statement.

That you perceive yourself to be acting in good faith and me to be acting otherwise does not make it hypocrisy.

If you are intending to engage in good faith, please observe that - at the very least - we seem to be having a bad time successfully communicating in this format. Perhaps we can try some other medium? If you're in the bay area, I'll buy you a beer (or social equivalent).