On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 16:47:48 UTC, Don wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 13:58:38 UTC, 12345swordy
wrote:
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.
Like I said previously I am on the reviews side and that's it.
In terms of what exactly?
Walter had stated they do not rejected the dip in principle.
You apparently *do* rejected it in principle, from judging your
posts here.
By the way I don't like your tone when you say: "I do not
accept gut feeling as a valid objection here".
If you stated that you think it a bad/good idea without
explaining why you think it. That is what I call "gut feeling"
Alright we're talking about a change that have been on hold for
almost 10 years, if it was simple it would already been done.
The current dip system didn't exist 10 years prior. I wouldn't
say that things are already done due to them being simple, as
there are quite number of "simple" features that wasn't
implemented already (Looking at you tuples).
-Alex
