Formal review of DIP1002

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote:
> 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
>
> There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the
> DIP process already made by others.

You'd actually did us a huge favor if you did. I don't recall any
standing requests, so links to past discussions would be helpful. This
is a new process and Dicebot, myself, and Walter are very open to
suggestions on how to improve it.

> I will be submitting no more DIPs or engaging in the process in any
> way unless and until it is significantly changed.

What could we have done in the particular case of DIP2002 to make things 
better?


Thanks,

Andrei