D parsing

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-11-12 09:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> So how could we express a "no" that doesn't annoy you in the extreme? In
> case the answer would be "you haven't explained why", allow me to retort.
>
> I've mentioned the argument before: at this point we should focus on
> quality of implementation and making good use of the features we have.
> In fact I am repeating myself: http://goo.gl/1thq1j. As has been
> publicly known for a while now, our strategy has been to improve quality
> and to double down on the assets we have. People ask for a roadmap, and
> what's missing from a roadmap is as important as what's there.
>
> This is a strategy that Walter and I agree with, have been transparent
> about, and that may work or not, with various degrees of success.
> Reasonable people may disagree what the best step moving forward should
> be, but at some point some step must be made and we can't adopt your
> strategy, with which we disagree, as our strategy, just to be nice and
> not offend your sensibility. (I'm using "we" here because Walter and I
> discussed this at large.) There must be a way to say "no" that doesn't
> offend you. Please advise what that is.

Thank you for the explanation. I do understand your and Walter's 
position in this.

Just giving a short reason, to accompany the "no" with helps a lot. It 
doesn't need to be as long as the explanation above, just a sentence, like:

"no, at this time we don't want to make such a big change, we're trying 
to stabilize".

This is not just for me. I'm hoping proposal from others also can get a 
fair reason to why the "no".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg