On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 04:34:46 UTC, Don wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 03:01:36 UTC, 12345swordy
wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 00:25:17 UTC, Don wrote:
But what I fail to see is why can't the programmer solve this
themselves instead of relying on a new feature that would
cause more harm?
Donald.
...Did you even read the arguments in the dip? This has been
discuss quite a lot in the forums, it even gives you links to
them.
Well, I read the DIP and the whole forum discussion back in the
day, and again I think this will create more harm than benefits
the way it was proposed.
Donald.
I do not accept gut feeling as a valid objection here. The
current workarounds is shown to be painful as shown in the dip
and in the discussions that it currently link. That *the*
motivation here.
I am familiar with the author here, he is very involved with the
C++<->D compatibility side of things. He knows the pain from
first hand experience.
-Alex
