The Problem With DIPs

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 08:24:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Monday, 13 June 2016 at 20:15:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/13/2016 3:33 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> But would it really have an effect if I wrote a DIP on 
>>> getting predictable
>>> floating point behaviour? If there is a chance that it would, 
>>> then I might
>>> consider it :-).
>>
>> I encourage you to consider it.
>
> Ok, I am considering it. ;-)
>
> I also don't think there is a problem in having DIPs that are 
> in limbo. I prefer that over rejection, as most ideas often 
> have something to them for others to build upon.
>
> So it is better to just have some fields that lists how one DIP 
> is related to another DIP (e.g. "replaced by", "related to", 
> "depends on" etc).
>
> Outright rejection probably just discourage people from 
> contributing similar DIPs that would be good for the language.
>
> Better with constructive qualitative comments which point out 
> unresolved issues, which can lead to new improved DIPs.

Consider that there are many optimizations that rely on fp not 
being predictable. For instance, fabs(x) can be transformed into 
x | 0x80000000 if you don't care about NaN's sign (yes, NaN are 
signed).