D is our last hope

[Walter Bright]

On 12/22/2023 12:54 PM, aberba wrote:
> Hmm. I understand your point. But that's when the change is DEFINITELY going to 
> be included, right?

I said I'd give it a fair review.


> But until then, are you able to comment whether you're happy with the current 
> implementation or not?

I tried with the previous specification, and was told that the implementation 
didn't match it and I should read the code. This wasted both my time and the 
rebuttal person's time. I'm currently waiting for a specification that 
accurately reflects the proposal, and then I will review it.


> I think a small community like D should be able to facilitate such a process. We 
> shouldn't have a bureaucracy problem at this stage. Could be demoralizing.

Having a document that provides an accurate and complete specification of the 
proposal is essential for communicating without misunderstanding, especially 
when the stakeholders are distributed all over the globe.