DIP 1000--Scoped Pointers--Superseded

[Olivier FAURE]

On Thursday, 7 March 2019 at 14:24:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> The implementation supersedes the DIP.

I think the question a lot of people have in mind is "Is there 
any plan to formally organize a discussion about the future of 
scoped pointers?"

More specifically, are you planning a new DIP discussing the 
semantics of scope and return scope, ideally one that would take 
into account previous feedback, address concerns that DIP-1000 
had originally inspired, and include an analysis of the pros and 
cons of -dip1000's implementation, as reported by its current 
users?

Less formally, what I mean is that a lot of people had concerns 
at the time DIP-1000 was discussed; many of these concerns 
(including mine) weren't really addressed, and Walter's reaction 
gave the impression that he didn't understand them, and as a 
result, considered them unimportant, which led to a lot of 
frustration (including, if I remember correctly, Dicebot stepping 
down as DIP manager) and a general break in communication between 
Walter and the community.

So, considering how important scoped pointers are to the language 
(betterC, webasm, video games, C++ interop, competing with Rust), 
I think (and I realize this is a lot to ask) that this is an area 
where Walter needs to bite the bullet and make a sustained effort 
to interact with the community and address DIP-1000's problems, 
whether by starting another DIP or through some other mean.

If nothing else, we should probably have a "Who here uses 
-dip1000, and does it work for you?" thread.