UFCS for templates

[BS]

On Monday, 12 August 2013 at 12:07:26 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 18:28:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 09, 2013 05:29:05 JS wrote:
>>> On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:57:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> > On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:34:31 UTC, JS wrote:
>>> Um, not really..
>> [snip]
>>
>> Actually, that is how it works. If you want a change made to 
>> the language, you
>
> That's the wrong POV, sorry about that. He/She does not want a
> change to be made in the language, at least not for one's own
> good, but for the language's own good.
>
> It is not a contest about which changes are better documented.
> Besides, a better documented change is not necessarily the best
> one. Better documentation helps, but it is not necessarily the
> burden of the first one to say it to do it.
>
> It is the burden of whoever feels like. Not feeling like is OK.
> Bashing other for not feeling like is KO. This is not a sect.
>
> OTOH, if one's think that such proposed change is not worthy, he
> could assume the role of writing a DIP on why such thing is
> undesirable to have it in the language.
>
> The question to ask oneself/others is not "You want a change 
> made
> to the language?", but "What pro/con reasons I could give for
> this change? What manner this change, if implemented, would
> impact the language? And that impact would be for the better or
> for the worse?".
>
> Yes, I agree, not all stones thrown in here are bricks. But some
> are grains of sands of which such bricks are made.

I disagree.

Any change requested is often *a lot* of work for volunteers. 
Volunteers who are already spending a lot of free time developing 
D for people to use at no cost. Expecting them to spend even more 
time coming up with use cases from proposals laid out in a small 
NG post is a bit rich. I can understand some people getting a bit 
frustrated by it (this isn't the only thread like this from the 
OP).

It would be different if D were commercial. User proposals would 
probably require a DIP draft to be submitted via the web before 
it would even be looked at. Maybe that would avoid all this 
teenageesque whinging...