DIP74 - where is at?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/12/15 10:21 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 06:02:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> There are not considered because DIP25 is "simpler" and you and Walter
>>> "like it". As long as nothing changes here, there is really no point in
>>> wasting my time.
>>
>> That is a fair assessment. Basically I believe DIP25 is good language
>> design, and I have evidence for it. The evidence you showed failed to
>> convince me the design is a hack, and yelling at me is unlikely to
>> help. Please decide as you find fit. At some point it is clear that
>> several language designers will disagree on estimating the quality of
>> something.
>>
>
> If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are pulling
> me the old prove a negative trick. You have good evidence that DIP25 is
> good design ? Good, because I have none. And that's my proof. As long as
> I have no evidence that DIP25 is good, DIP25 is bad.

Instead of assuming my purpose here is to pull tricks on you and 
manipulate the dialog politically, it's more productive to just stick to 
the technical discussion. I only started the dialog to get more informed 
about technical things.

>> Probably git grep in phobos may be a good starting point.
>>
>
> I don't think grepping for return will have a good noise to signal
> ratio.

Sorry, I meant to git grep for "return ref".

> You also mentioned several time that you have good evidence that
> DIP25 rox. Yet, every time you post that without any evidence, I'm a bit
> more convinced that none exists.

The motivation is in the document and follows many discussions derived 
from it. It's all about functions and particularly member functions 
returning up references to data safely.

Amaury, you and Timon are probably the most competent PL theorists in 
this forum. He did great work: found real problems with DIP25 that need 
to be looked at. In that light, spending time protesting and yelling 
figuratively at people is a distinctly unproductive way to spend your 
time as a very talented contributor. Do great work. It will be 
recognized. Don't point me at your past posts. They are not great work 
and you know it. Don't point me at those related DIPs. They are not 
great work and you know it. Don't find reasons to not do great work 
because it'll be wasted on my ego. Do great work and you will prevail.

This tone of discussion has carried its course. I'm done arguing so if 
you want to continue arguing, great - last word is yours. In the recent 
times I've done my best to reduce my participation to unproductive 
discussions in forums, and the added perspective and time for real work 
have been very valuable. I suggest everyone to try it.


Andrei