Exceptions in @nogc code

[Meta via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 5 April 2017 at 12:14:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 4/4/17 12:26 AM, Nick B wrote:
>> Can one assume that Walter is thinking about deadalnix's 
>> detailed proposal above, and that he will give a formal 
>> response, once he has given it serious thought, and discussed 
>> it with Andrei ?
>
> As a matter of procedure no, a forum post will not be followed 
> by a formal response. The DIP process ensures a formal response.
>
> The post is far from what one would call a proposal, let alone 
> a detailed one. It is a sketch of an idea that addresses a 
> complex matter without minding a large number of details. 
> That's totally fine; the whole discussion opener was also 
> informal and lacking details. It's just that we can't work on 
> someone else's vague idea.
>
> I encourage anyone interested in pursuing this idea to work on 
> a DIP.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

In fairness, the DIP process is painfully slow (which I can 
suppose can be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing). 
DIP1003[0] has yet to be commented on, despite it being a simple 
and easily understandable change. Yes, during that time Dicebot 
quit as DIP manager, but when he quit this DIP was already over 
the deadline for comment by a couple weeks.

I went in not expecting a lot in terms of promptness and with the 
understanding that it was such a trivial and low-priority change 
that a prompt result was not really necessary (and thus I was 
willing to wait patiently), and yet I admit that in spite of all 
my goodwill I was frustrated by the lack of response after over 2 
months.

My point is that I completely understand why someone would not 
want to bother going through the DIP process.

1. https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md