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

12345swordy alexanderheistermann at gmail.com
Wed Jan 30 20:02:08 UTC 2019

On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 16:47:48 UTC, Don wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 13:58:38 UTC, 12345swordy 
> wrote:
>> I do not accept gut feeling as a valid objection here. The 
>> current workarounds is shown to be painful as shown in the dip 
>> and in the discussions that it currently link. That *the* 
>> motivation here.
> Like I said previously I am on the reviews side and that's it.

In terms of what exactly?
Walter had stated they do not rejected the dip in principle.
You apparently *do* rejected it in principle, from judging your 
posts here.

> By the way I don't like your tone when you say: "I do not 
> accept gut feeling as a valid objection here".

If you stated that you think it a bad/good idea without 
explaining why you think it. That is what I call "gut feeling"

> Alright we're talking about a change that have been on hold for 
> almost 10 years, if it was simple it would already been done.

The current dip system didn't exist 10 years prior. I wouldn't 
say that things are already done due to them being simple, as 
there are quite number of "simple" features that wasn't 
implemented already (Looking at you tuples).


More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list