Formal review of DIP1002

[John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical 
> feature would need to be include qualitatively new 
> motivation/evidence of usefulness.
>
> Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale: 
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review

Regardless of the outcome, I just want to commend whoever wrote 
the rejection text* on doing such a clear and comprehensive job. 
I'm sure it must be disappointing for a DIP author to have it 
rejected, but detailed, constructive criticism like this would - 
for me at least - make the experience worthwhile and encourage 
further contributions of higher quality.

* I see dicebot committed, but I'm presuming Walter &| Andrei had 
a lot of input and I think i detect recent exposure to the 
academic review process...