On 19 October 2013 21:29, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On Oct 18, 2013 7:45 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu" <
> seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
> >
> > Walter scrambled to implement UDAs in a rush and breaking protocol in
> order to win a corporate D user, Remedy Games. It was a major, exceptional
> event. Would you have preferred the protocol to have been followed at the
> cost of Remedy?
> >
> I would have preferred Remedy working with the community, rather than
> talking behind closed doors to those who concern only them.  And I say this
> as someone who was part involved before UDAs and the public announcement
> came into the picture.
Surely you can appreciate that we weren't ready for it to be made public
information. We didn't really have much choice. There's always company
bureaucracy to deal with.

What I did find interesting, in reflection at dconf, was that Manu
> countered all arguments (that I could recall) Walter made to keeping the
> deprecation in place.
I had no idea about the deprecation of the original syntax. I don't recall
ever being a party to any discussion on that matter. The community clearly
voted for @attribute syntax, and as soon as it was done, I switched all our
code over.
I wasn't personally precious about which way the syntax went. We just
needed the feature, and it seems to have been successfully used by many
others since us too, so I really hope most people agree it was a valuable
addition, despite materialising fairly abruptly.
It's also not like I was the first to come up with it either, people had
been talking about attributes for years, I just gave it a nudge.
If we were the only people that *ever* used the initial (experimental)
C#-style [attribute] syntax, then it should be removed and put an end to
this criticism, since I changed our code over within minutes of the new
syntax being made available :)
There's probably no D code anywhere that uses the original C#-style syntax.

Reply via email to