DIP 1027--String Interpolation--Final Review Discussion Thread

[Paolo Invernizzi]

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 22:38:59 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 04.02.20 22:57, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 2/4/20 8:44 AM, jmh530 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 12:47:28 UTC, Steven 
>>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> As I expected, this was rejected, and Walter didn't 
>>>> understand what I was saying, says we shouldn't bake % into 
>>>> the format specification (it doesn't), and that it's like 
>>>> AST macros (it's not). Since there's no arguing on the 
>>>> feedback thread, I didn't want to push it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Several people seem to think it is an important proposal, so 
>>> I wouldn't want you to get discouraged.
>> 
>> I've been involved in many discussions like this with Walter, 
>> and it's not something I plan to do in this case. Once he 
>> makes up his mind, the chances that I can convince him 
>> otherwise shrink to almost non-existent, and it's not worth 
>> the effort IMO.
>> 
>>> However, when you say "Walter didn't understand what I was 
>>> saying", another way to look at it is "I didn't communicate 
>>> this well enough to convince Walter".
>> 
>> Possibly, but his response looks like he's trying to 
>> intentionally avoid discussing the proposal at all (most of 
>> the points were obviously incorrect, which leads me to believe 
>> that he would rather not discuss the actual proposal). I don't 
>> have lots of time to argue with people who aren't open to 
>> discussion.
>> 
>> -Steve
>
> +1. I have refrained from commenting on the string 
> interpolation DIP so far because it is not important enough to 
> me to yet again get into the situation that Steve, Adam, 
> Jonathan,... are in now. It's a very frustrating way to lose a 
> lot of what could have been productive time.
>
> Personally, I think it is ridiculous that the DIP focuses on 
> printf over all other use cases so much yet in the common case, 
> the proposed string interpolation will lead to access 
> violations when used with printf in the most natural way, and 
> it does not even support type safe formatting. This is not what 
> people mean when they vote for string interpolation on a survey.
>
> @jmh530: Have you read all the arguments made? Do you really 
> think they are not compelling enough to at least warrant being 
> addressed?

The simple solution is just vote for not accepting the DIP ... 
personally, it will be my first DIP vote, and it will be against 
it.

String interpolation is not solving anything that needs to be 
solved, as a consequence, I don't want another 'convenient' 
feature added if it's not super-easy to grasp and use.

/P