On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 10:58:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Rejected D Improvement Proposals on small matters that D
language's leader thinks strongly about should allow everybody
to move on to larger, better things.
We are unable to, and should not be required to, provide
argumentation when making a decision on a DIP that will be to
the satisfaction of everybody involved.
No no no, no. No.
You have rejected the DIP to the annoyance of the community, That
is fine. You have a decision making process.
However in this case the community consensus is that the chain of
reasoning you have used to arrive at your decision is wrong.
Of course, pressure does exist on making the right decision and
on framing it properly;
Indeed, you should be making the right decisions _ for the right
reasons_. I note that this is uncorrelated with wether or not we
want the feature, c.f. refcounting before we had copy
constructors (wanted it but couldn't have it because memory
safety reasons) and opPostMove (didn't want to have to have it
but e.g. couldn't interface with GCC's std::string).
otherwise, one poor decision after another, we end up with a
bad language that people will not want to use.
Yes, but for the completely opposite reason. If the community
believe the reasoning you provide for the decision you have made
is wrong then we will end up with a language we not as satisfied
with.
[Because reasons] that all is wasted time.
There's a bunch of big rocks to move.
Jut because we have a bunch of other large problems does not mean
that we shouldn't be fixing other problems in the language that
you happen to disagree with.
