new DIP5: Properties 2

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> Kagamin wrote:
>> http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP5
>>
>> As namespaces were proposed, a variant of them is in DIP5 now.
> 
> Oh dear, here we go.
> 
> Let's all create our own DIPs as slight variations of existing ones when
> we disagree instead of actually working together!
> 
> Is there ANY reason this couldn't have been put into DIP4 as an
> alternative solution?
> 
> This isn't even an objective proposal...
> 
> "Parts of DIP4 are too puristic and as a consequence - insane."  No
> objective reasoning given; just calling DIP4 "insane."
> 
> "Default storage is not a big deal to be so anal about it."  That's
> subjective.  You then go on to admit that you need trivial properties
> for interfaces, yet completely discount that use case.
> 
> "The {get;set;} syntax exists in C# only for reflection purposes..." No,
> I'm pretty sure it exists because interfaces can't have fields, and most
> accessors are trivial.
> 
> This is *exactly* why I said DIPs need to have some form of editorial
> control.


Agreed. There are problems with most of the DIPs already:

DIP3 is way too brief. The Rationale is just one sentence, stating 
simply that "[...] leads to strange behaviour", full stop.

DIP4 was created at too early a stage in the discussion. (That said, it 
is probably the most well written one, with a good rationale section and 
a comprehensive list of pros and cons.)

DIP5 is too brief, written in a very subjective style, and -- most 
importantly -- unnecessary, as it's just a "reply" to DIP4. DIP5 reads 
like an NG post.


(Regarding DIP3: I posted the above critique in the DIP3 thread, but it 
was ignored. Indeed, DIP3 seems abandoned by its author, since it hasn't 
been updated after its announcement.)

-Lars