Import concerns revisited

[Georg Wrede]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> Not to get off topic, but that was a pretty hot issue and a lot of ideas 
> were thrown around (as with this now).  I preferred the old syntax as 
> well but wasn't willing to press the issue and things heated up.  And by 
> the end of the discussion I don't think there was any clear consensus on 
> what the changes should be.  I suspect this is why everyone was a bit 
> surprised at the changes--any changes would have been at least a bit 
> surprising.  I think what was lacking there was public evidence of any 
> sort of decision.  At some point things just sort of died down and the 
> next release contained a new implementation built from the conclusions 
> you had drawn (accurate or no).  It would have helped immensely if, 
> before making any changes, there had been a post outlining your 
> conclusions and the changes you intended to make. 

That last sentence deserves to be read again!

> This would inevitably 
> have sparked more discussion, but if it's a change you don't find 
> particularly appealing anyway, I think it's worth making sure the 
> dissenters have no right to complain after the fact :-)

Good point.

>>> 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).
> 
> 
> I think part of the problem is that large public forums doesn't lend 
> themselves well to directed discussion, and the general trend in d.D, 
> simply because of the large number of participants, is that any such 
> discussion be comes frustratingly garbled.  You don't reply to every 
> person who feels they said something deserving a response, and people 
> begin to feel they're being deliberately ignored.  As Kris started this 
> discussion in the first place, I suspect it's particularly frustrating 
> to him that it suffer the fate of all such discussions here, and that 
> his posts are some of those not offered considered responses.  Not to 
> mention that this is an issue he appears to have spent a tremendous 
> amount of time thinking about, and obviously feels quite strongly about 
> as well.

Sometimes I feel Walter has been a bit terse, especially when something 
is /clear/ to him. Static import is a case in point. This whole thread 
may have been a lot shorter if the merits of Static import would have 
become adequately explained from the outset to more people.

> Assuming you're considering any change as a result of this conversation, 
> perhaps the details could be settled explicitly, either here or in a 
> separate thread?  I think everyone has said their piece at this point, 
> and it would probably help everyone cool down a bit if things wrapped up 
> with a suggested plan, even if the plan is to not change a thing for 
> reasons X Y and Z.

Good suggestion!