The DIP Process

[Jonathan Marler]

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 at 03:51:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/1/2019 2:01 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> Exactly.  With the current process everyone is doing alot of 
>> work and producing no results.  We are proposing to change the 
>> process not to save work, but to turn the work we are already 
>> doing into effective results.
>
> Dip1016 is not "no result". It's clear that rvalues to ref 
> parameters is the way forward. I'm now writing the DIP for it.

Out of all the things I said...you chose to respond to this?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.  If we've learned anything 
from the way you respond on the forums and the way you give DIP 
feedback, it seems to be a pattern of yours to ignore the major 
points of what someone writes, then respond to a minor part of it 
and think that's adequate.

I have a hard time seeing how someone can justify this behavior 
to themselves, unless you don't realize what you're actually 
doing; or maybe you just don't think a full response is worth 
your time.

Because of these poor responses we can never seem to get 
resolution.  We just keep arguing and coming back to the same 
things over and over.  I'd rather spend time my time programming 
but for some reason I still have hope that this community will 
get better.  Maybe I'm delusional.