DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review

[Olivier FAURE]

On Monday, 25 February 2019 at 16:00:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> Thorough feedback has been given, likely more so than for any 
> other submission. A summary for the recommended steps to take 
> can be found here:
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/q2u429$1cmg$1@digitalmars.com
>
> It is not desirable to demand reviewers to do more work on the 
> review or to defend it. Acceptance by bullying is unlikely to 
> create good results. The target of work is squarely the 
> proposal itself.

Agreed.

Honestly, I am not impressed with the behavior of several members 
here.

I understand that the rvalue DIP went through a long process, 
that some people really wanted it to be accepted, and that it was 
frustrating to wait so long only for it to be refused, but at 
some point, you guys have to accept that the people in charge 
refused it. They explained why they did, their reasons matched 
concerns other users had, and they explained how to move the 
proposal forward.

So again, I get that this is frustrating, but repeatedly 
complaining and asking for an appeal and protesting about other 
DIPs being accepted is *not* professional behavior. Reviewers are 
entitled to refuse contributions for any reasons, and if a 
reviewer rejects a proposal, too bad; you don't get to ask again 
and again and complain and bring it up in every other thread 
until they say yes.

Yes, this DIP was fast-tracked. Yes, this can feel unfair. And 
yet, it makes sense that it was fast-tracked, because it fits a 
priority of the project owners (C++ interoperability + reference 
counting) and project owners are allowed to have priorities. It's 
not like this DIP was rushed or has major vulnerabilities (the 
"mutable copy constructor" thing is necessary for reference 
counting).