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:
Regardless of the outcome, I just want to commend whoever wrote
the rejection text* on doing such a clear and comprehensive job.
I'm sure it must be disappointing for a DIP author to have it
rejected, but detailed, constructive criticism like this would -
for me at least - make the experience worthwhile and encourage
further contributions of higher quality.
* I see dicebot committed, but I'm presuming Walter &| Andrei had
a lot of input and I think i detect recent exposure to the
academic review process...