Another Phobos2 test

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, February 07, 2011 17:11:50 bearophile wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky:
> > (Although, I didn't read the OP very closely, so maybe I'm off-base.)
> 
> They are right, I have done a "strategic" error. In the original post I
> have mixed two kinds of very unrelated things: very small suggestions to
> improve (in my opinion) Phobos, plus some critiques to the D2 language
> compared to Python. People have rightly not appreciated my post because of
> the second group of useless comments. I am sorry, I am just stupid.
> Regarding the original post, in Bugzilla I have added only Phobos-related
> things.

Stupid is going a bit far. You do seem to have a tendancy however to at least 
present things as if D should act like python, which isn't necessarily a good 
thing. Different points of view on how to go about solving problems can lead to 
better solutions however. It's just that it doesn't necssarily make sense for D 
to act like python, and you often come across like D is defficient when it does 
things differently than python.

- Jonathan M Davis