Are D classes proper reference types?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 07:44:25 UTC, Mathias LANG wrote:
> (the case you are thinking of), but also provides us from 
> making non backward-compatible downstream changes (meaning we 
> can't change it as we see fit if we realize there is potential 
> for optimization).

Has this ever happened?

> Waiting on "consensus" is an easy way to avoid doing any kind 
> of work :)

You don't need strict consensus, but you need at least one 
compiler team to agree that it is a worthwhile.

> I'm fairly sure most large achievements that have been 
> undertaken by people in this community (that were not W&A) have 
> been done without their (W&A's) blessing. People just went 
> ahead and did it. But obviously those people cared more about 
> getting things done than spending time discussing it on the 
> forums.

Was that a snide comment? Totally uncalled for, I certainly don't 
depend on anyones blessing to play with my own fork, but it does 
not affect anything outside it.

Making a PR for a repo without acceptance is utterly pointless 
and a waste of effort. Nobody should do it. They will just end up 
feeling miserable about what they could instead have spent their 
time on (including kids and family).

I am 100% confident that there has been a massive waste of effort 
in the D history that is due to a lack of coordination. Ranging 
from libraries that went nowhere to PRs that dried up and died.

Individual PRs won't fix the whole. The whole can only be fixed 
with a plan. To get to a place where you can plan you need to 
form a vision. To form a vision you need to work towards 
consensus.

You cannot fix poor organization with PRs. The PR-demanding crowd 
is off the rails irrational. Cut down on the excuses, start 
planning!

(What large achievements are you speaking of, by the way?)