DIP 1021--Argument Ownership and Function Calls--Formal Assessment
Jonathan M Davis
newsgroup.d at jmdavisprog.com
Wed Oct 23 00:03:35 UTC 2019
On Monday, October 21, 2019 6:59:21 AM MDT Exil via Digitalmars-d-announce
> > This proposal is one step toward a larger goal outlined in the
> > blog post ['Ownership and Borrowing in
> > D'](https://dlang.org/blog/2019/07/15/ownership-and-borrowing-in-d/).
> That's the only line that was added, no other changes were made
> to the core DIP from the first revision to the last. Big ducking
> surprise this got accepted anyways.
Did you expect anything else? Given that it was Walter's DIP, and he's
making the decisions, the only way that the DIP was going to change was if
he were convinced that the DIP was flawed. He's been convinced of that
before (e.g. the DIP that was for adding a bottom type was written by
Walter, but it was rejected, because the community convinced him that it was
a bad idea). He just wasn't convinced that this DIP was a bad idea.
Personally, I didn't see any problem with this DIP, since it just tightened
down @safe a bit. Whether the next steps in the "larger goal" are good ones
is another matter entirely, and those will be put in a DIP (or multiple
DIPs) and argued on their own at some point. And if they're bad ideas, then
hopefully he will be convinced of that when those DIPs are discussed.
Ultimately though, no matter who comes up with the DIP, Walter has to be
convinced that it's a good idea. It's just that if it's his DIP, he's
already convinced that it's a good idea, so someone has to then convince him
otherwise for it to not be accepted.
Fortunately, while Walter certainly doesn't have a perfect track record, he
has a pretty darn good one, or D wouldn't be what it is today.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce