We are forking D

[Timon Gehr]

On 1/10/24 11:40, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> 
> Let's come back to pragmatism:
> - everyone thinks DIP1038e is far better than DIP1027
> - you are not convinced, but hey, we are human being, maybe you are wrong.
> 
> What's the solution? Simple, recognise that! You grown a really talented 
> group of people, so trust them! We are talking about a "language" 
> feature, we have Timon onboard, with a raised thumb on that, trust his 
> judgement!

To be clear, in order of importance:

- I do not want DIP1027 in the language, it solves the wrong problem.
- I think DIP1036e is cool and solves the right problem.

Whether DIP1036e should be merged as-is is or should be separated out 
into different features that allow to solve the same problem is another 
question, at the moment I am mostly arguing that DIP1027 is inadequate.

Walter implementing the previously rejected DIP1027 instead of engaging 
with Adam's new proposal that addressed DIP1027's shortcomings I think 
was not a great move, but I understand it is more fun to implement your 
own idea than to try to understand someone else's.