DIP 1026---Deprecate Context-Sensitive String Literals---Community Review Round 1

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 21:57:00 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> A good DIP creates a scientific argument. It would have the 
> general attitude of building, through a series of factual 
> statements, a hypothesis that is convincing. A neutral person 
> with the proper background would read the facts and reach the 
> conclusion as much as the author. (In contrast, a DIP that is 
> not scientific would attempt to use qualitative arguments and 
> rhetoric in an attempt to create an opinion trend.)

That will prevent qualitative incremental improvements. You 
cannot make quantitative arguments without very large amounts of 
data... there is no such dataset, only github.

If the DIP had provided an argument for an alternative 
here-document syntax that was easier to parse then it is probable 
that there would have been few objections to it. It could have 
been automated.

There is really no use in pretending that language changes are 
apolitical. They are usually inherently political.