DIP 1020--Named Parameters--Community Review Round 2
rikki at cattermole.co.nz
Sun Sep 15 14:50:06 UTC 2019
On 16/09/2019 2:32 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> On Friday, 13 September 2019 at 07:56:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I'm going to be blunt, so shields up!
>> For DIP 1020 and DIP 1019, I keep trying to nudge things in the
>> direction of a better design:
>> All to no avail. It pains me a great deal to see all this effort and
>> discussion going down the drain on designs that are both more complex
>> and inadequate. The authors have exhibited little or no interest in
>> either adopting my suggestions or explaining why theirs are better.
>> Andrei and Atila have tried as well.
>> This has gone on long enough. DIP 1019 and 1020 are not going to be
>> (It is clear that a lot of time was spend on the DIPs, and they are
>> well written and presented. The authors should be proud of them. It's
>> just that we have a better design.)
> That is fair. But keep in mind there is a difference here. DIP 1019/1020
> are _ready_, meaning they can start to be implemented once approved.
> OTOH, the better design is still just an idea, and no one seems to be
> willing to take on the task to write a DIP for it.
> Is it a good idea to stall a useful feature indefinitely because there
> is some potential better design?
> (Yes, I'm bitter and biased, but I still this is a legitimate question
> to ask.).
Walter has begun working on it as stated on his Twitter account.
I have given him feedback to help improve it via Twitter. It has a long
way to go given the feedback the DIPs 1019+1020 received (which IMHO has
set a precedent for what it needs to include).
More information about the Digitalmars-d