Import concerns revisited

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> kris wrote:
> 
>> The same thing happened with Associative Arrays: you didn't bother to 
>> solicit opinion on either of the two occasions when it was changed; 
>> and then subsequently complained when people still found issue with 
>> you alternate changes. It's still not right to this day. I see the 
>> same pattern here. And for what?
> 
> 
> I did implement it according to the suggestions - and then the people 
> who made those suggestions had issue with it. So I take issue(!) with 
> your statement that I did it in a vacuum. I preferred the original 
> design, and the change caused me a lot of work updating things like 
> dmdscript which extensively used AA's.

Well, the last time you changes things, you may recall there were a 
flurry of posts saying "huh? what the heck happened here?". You 
subsequently made a post noting how nobody liked AA even after you 
changed it twice. I was present on both occasions, and it sure seemed 
like you made the changes in a vacuum. On both ocassions.

> 
> 
>> Anyone would think we were trying to sabotage the language,
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that. We are all trying to get the best design for D 
> possible. That doesn't mean we are all going to agree on what the best 
> design is. There's no cause to label a difference of opinion as 
> sabotage, or any of the other epithets bandied about in this 
> disagreement (or some of the previous ones).

It's far beyond a difference of opinion, Walter. Just look at the swell 
of experienced developers here literally begging for you to make a small 
change. Instead of listening carefully with an open mind, you project a 
closed and vacant shell. I think you'd have to agree that this is one 
serious issue.

Why do you simply stonewall it? The projection is as though you're not 
even open to discussion.