[Re: revenge of the ballot, B7]

[Glenn S. Burke <GSB @ MIT-ML>]

Kent pointed out that i referred to Moon's comments on
pathname-convention and came up with a negative reply, unlike Moon.
This is because (based on those arguments) the original reason for it
does not hold up.  And while pathname-convention may not be an
unreasonable thing to have, we would have to standardize on what it
returned for it to be useful, and that could get complicated if you
tried to allow perturbations of standard "conventions" (and
"subtyping" of them etc.).  I'm not against that, but it might even
mean yet-another-ballot.