The DIP Process

[Manu]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:05 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> I propose that rejecting a DIP is NOT wasted effort.
>
> Most language ideas come up again and again. If an idea is rejected early in the
> process, it will come up again and people will have to rediscover the thought
> process for why it was rejected. The worst case will be not rediscovering the
> why, then implement it, and find out the hard way.
>
> For example, we were pretty far along in the automatic ref counting thing until
> Timon found a fundamental flaw in it that everyone missed. It sunk the whole
> thing, we couldn't find a way to make it memory safe.
>
> ARC keeps coming up again and again. But we don't have a DIP to point to to show
> the fatal flaw, and we just have to remember to point it out again.
>
> A rejected DIP comes with a rationale, so anyone trying to resurrect the idea
> will have a starting point for both the new proposal and will be prepared to
> surmount the objections, which will save a lot of grief. If they've got nothing
> new to add, they'll save a lot of time repeating the failure.
>
> Rejected DIPs also form a basis and a standard for future DIPs. Andrei and I
> have both noticed that C++ proposals have gotten steadily better over the years.
> DIPs - rejected and accepted - form the corpus of knowledge that make up what
> and why D is what it is.
>
> For another example, analyzing failed military campaigns is just as useful as
> studying successful ones.
>
> ---
>
> Tl,Dr: Rejecting a completed DIP wastes time in the short term, but saves time
> in the long term.

Wow...
I'm speechless.

How can you write this email with a straight face?
You can't possibly write this and then not go back and correct your
rejection text. There's an exception issue; easily amendable, and then
the rest was a misreading due to a misunderstood variable name and
then a gloss over anything else ("found other issues with the
proposal, most of which may have been remedied through simple
revision"); completely unhelpful.

"it will come up again and people will have to rediscover the thought
process for why it was rejected" - WB
"A rejected DIP comes with a rationale" - WB
"so anyone trying to resurrect the idea will have a starting point for
both the new proposal and will be prepared to surmount the objections"
- WB

I'd also like to know why it was rejected, and I think that should be
clearly stated at the bottom. I feel like it's not the first time I've
said this.
What's written there now is worthless to posterity.

Anyway, it's your DIP now.