On 5/12/19 10:17 PM, Exil wrote:
On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 10:58:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Bringing it up over and over again, like a perennial fight in a marriage, with the hope of finally convincing the spouse on the wrongness of their views - that all is wasted time.

There's a bunch of big rocks to move.

I take it from this response you mean, once a DIP is rejected it would never be looked at again, even if a second DIP was created for the same purpose with different arguments?

A new DIP argued differently would be considered. If that's not in the official DIP guidelines, it should.
              • ... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: bool (was... Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: bool ... Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • Re: ... Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jon Degenhardt via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • Re: ... Exil via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: bool ... Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: bool (was... FeepingCreature via Digitalmars-d-announce
    • Re: bool (was DConf 2... Mike Franklin via Digitalmars-d-announce
  • Re: DConf 2019 AGM Livestr... AurĂ©lien Plazzotta via Digitalmars-d-announce

Reply via email to