Final by default?

[Walter Bright]

On 3/13/2014 1:16 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 3/13/14, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> I didn't even know about this client before the breakage.
>
> I'm really getting tired of this argument. An unknown client (which
> you still haven't named,

Companies won't trust me if whatever they say about their private business I 
blather over the internet. My default behavior is, unless they give me explicit 
permission, to treat my interactions with them as confidential.


> so as far as I'm concerned it might as well
> be just a reddit troll) comes out of the blue,

I find this accusation quite unfair. You either trust me to work in the best 
interests of D, or you don't. I've been quite open in explaining the reasoning 
going on. Naming isn't going to add anything.


 > I mean the whole idea of client X deciding to ring up Andrei or Walter, NDAs 
to not disclose their name, and make an executive decision on some 
language/phobos feature.

Anyone can (and has) sent me emails about D which they wish to be confidential, 
and I treat them as such, and will continue to do so. People who want to express 
concerns privately may do so, and those who want to express them publicly can do 
so (right here) as well.

Please also consider that the proposal for final-by-default comes from Manu, 
formerly of Remedy Games. Recall that I implemented UDAs ostensibly for Manu & 
Remedy, but also because I thought it was a great feature for D. But this one I 
am not so convinced is great for D. The takeaway is I am certainly not doing 
things just because some client asked for it and to hell with the rest of the 
community - the evidence contraindicates that.