How about "auto" parameters?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:50:49 -0400, Matthew Ong <ongbp at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 6/4/2011 1:32 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> But yes, there are cases where something is a good idea, but
>> it is difficult to get people to listen to your ideas because they have
>> too much bad blood with it.
> Suggest that those bad blood get some time off to think about the issue.

Good ideas aren't always accompanied by good or obvious designs.  The  
point I was making is, you need to have a very solid "oh, obviously that  
is better!" design in those cases in order to re-open the issue, even if  
the core ideas are solid.

>
>>
>>> Perhaps people knows that is the useful syntax? Nope,
>>> the world changed in the last 3-4 years, and shocked a lot of people.
>>> Past does not define the future. Just like C++ people mocked at Java  
>>> 1.0
>>> or Java mocked at C# does not mean those idea are alll bad?
>> I hate salmon. Every time I go out to eat with my parents and my father
>> gets salmon, he tries to get me to eat it saying "yeah, I know you don't
>> like salmon, but this is different, this is really good". And any time I
>> try it, I still hate it.
> Here you are talking about food which is a single personal choice that  
> does
> NOT impact the rest of the community. We are talking about the other way  
> around.

The point is, if something doesn't work, "trying it again" isn't going to  
make it work the next time.

What I see in your past proposals are personal choices that will affect  
everyone in the community, almost all of which are happy with the current  
state of things.  It's not a good place to start from.  If you want to  
tackle a problem that affects a lot of people, you will definitely get  
better reception, and if you can do it in a way that doesn't break  
existing code, you will be even further.

> Single or small group of people's choice that DOES impacting the entire  
> D community. Unless we are talking about being a iron curtain style  
> management, EVEN that has changed.

Not accepting bad designs does not mean management is ruling with an iron  
curtain.  Propose better designs, you'll get a better response.  Again,  
you can't base all this on one failed proposal.  If you have a legitimate  
argument, you will get better results.  Listening to the community doesn't  
mean obeying every request that gets submitted.

>
>>> The only constant in history is: Past does not define the future.
>>
>> No, the only constant is people who ignore history are bound to repeat  
>> it.
> In this case, both.
>
> Sometime, repeating the history, get things changed. Most people need  
> linear time to 'sink' in the idea.

Really?  That goes against all logic I can think of.  Isn't the definition  
of insanity doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting  
different results?

What you need to do in this case is *avoid* repeating history.  Don't have  
the same failed arguments over and over, you will get nowhere.

-Steve