Yet another strike against the current AA implementation

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Steve Teale wrote:
> Before something like Ranges are implemented, there should be some
> sort of RFC process where they are properly described rather than a
> reliance on D users to have read every thread of the newsgroup, and
> remembered it all.

There was. Incidentally, it was called "RFC on range design for D2".

I understand your frustration, but if you think for a minute, you 
realize your comments are uncalled for. We have discussed ranges at 
length and the community has had a long time to establish semantics and 
even names. I have (early, often, and repeatedly) warned the community 
that there will be a Phobos update that is bound to break a lot of code. 
I actively tried to massage several breaking changes into one single 
release so as to sweeten the pill. That all took a lot of time and 
thought from several people (Walter, Sean, and myself) who have better 
things to do. Now it would be great if you put yourself in our shoes, 
read your comments again, and tell me how they reflect on the writer.

You mention you want to see ranges described in terms that an old hand 
can understand. That's great. But that one good request was marred by 
comments that show you are more interested in reaffirming your 
prejudice, than in overcoming it.


Andrei