DIP 1016--ref T accepts r-values--Formal Assessment

Manu turkeyman at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 23:53:53 UTC 2019

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:45 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/2019 1:31 AM, Manu wrote:
> > This process is pretty unsatisfying, because it ships off to a
> > black-box committee, who were apparently able to misunderstand the
> > substance of the proposal and then not seek clarification, and despite
> > the only legitimate issue from my perspective being easily corrected,
> > it's been suggested to start a whole new DIP.
> It's no problem if you want to rework the existing text, just submit it as a new
> DIP.

This process has a long and deep pipe, why should it be a new DIP?
There's nothing from the rejection text that would motivate me to
change any words... Is it that you reject it 'in principle'? If so,
there's nothing I can ever do about that.
This took a substantial amount of my life, and you could have sought
clarification, or a revision before a rejection.
The rejection appears to be premised by misunderstanding more than
anything, and a one very real (but isolated) technical issue that I
believe can be corrected readily enough without affecting the
surrounding text.

The only improvement I could make is to better fold the discussion
from the community review into the core text, but it's not like that
digest wasn't already right there during consideration.

I have no idea how you guys managed to edit and re-frame my DIP as
applying to expressions? You removed the semicolons from the
statements, and then told me I had no idea what I was doing, mixing
expressions with statements that way... why did you do that?

More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list