DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Preliminary Review Round 2 Begins

[Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 19:36:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

>
> However, I think the presentation of the DIP needs some work. 
> For example, the rationales and lines of reasoning that 
> eventually led to the currently proposed syntax, both from the 
> original draft of this DIP and from the ensuing discussion in 
> the previous review thread, ought to be included (of course, in 
> summarized form -- no need to repeat the back-and-forth of the 
> original discussions, but just the eventual line of thought). 
> If possible, some of the discarded alternatives could be 
> mentioned along with the reasons why they were eventually 
> decided against.
>

All of the relevant information is available. The previous 
version of the DIP is in a link in the header (the 'Most Recent' 
link in the Review Count section) and links to all previous 
reviews can always be found in the Reviews section at the bottom. 
My view is that the current version of a DIP at each stage of the 
process should be pristine, as if it were written specifically 
for that stage.

The problem I have with summarizing what came before is not 
everyone will agree what is the most important bits to add to the 
summary, and its very presence will make it easy to avoid reading 
previous drafts in their entirety. Much better, IMO, to just 
include the links and let readers decide for themselves what is 
important.