On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:58:33 UTC, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:54:17 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:

Go to that bug report, read the very first message that Walter used to open the bug report, see about yourself, then come back here and tell me that the .d thing does not matter.

It is the *very* reason for this debate.

As to quote Walter's own understanding of the problem (unfortunately, the solution he proposed is bad):

"Thanks for the clear explanation. It makes a lot of sense.".

Now, if you disagree with that, you disagree with Walter.

I read the bug report, and the ensuing comments.  It just seems
that some people involved don't agree, but opinion appears to be
split.  Having Walter apparently on your side can't hurt though.
I can see why you like having the ability to process an
arbitrarily named file as a D source file, but some of the
counter-arguments have some merit.

Furthermore, reading the Bugzilla entry, it seems there as many
who support your idea as those who disagree.

I could also argue that this issue is a with git requiring a
'git-' suffix on its scripts without providing users with some
means of overriding the file naming convention (maybe this is
already possible, I have only minimal git experience)!

Really, I can see why you want the suggested change, I am just
surprised at the level of importance you seem to be ascribing to

Reply via email to