On Monday, 15 July 2019 at 13:06:58 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Monday, 15 July 2019 at 12:42:57 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
... and are the exception, not the rule. I believe they
should be moved to `rt`.
BTW, from this discussion it seems to me that you did not have
a good overview of the situation and made a bad decision based
on that. No problem there, however, throughout this discussion,
you've made a number of claims that have been refuted, and
instead of re-evaluating the situation, you've stuck to your
position while presenting continuously more radical
counter-arguments. At this point, I apologize and would like to
ask you to carefully consider whether you are trying to
neutrally argue for the best outcome to make D better, or
merely to continue supporting your position.
I'm not thoughtless and clueless, and I've acted in the best
interest of D.
I asked for input from other developers before moving forward.
They helped me understand that `rt` is where the core language
features are implemented. The code that I moved into `rt/array`
initially came from `rt`, depends on implementations in `rt` and
is the core implementation of D's built-in arrays, so it is
perfectly logical for it to be in `rt`. I submitted PRs that
were scrutinized by the reviewers and merged. Even after
considering your arguments, I still believe I made the right
decision. I'm sorry you disagree and don't find my explanations
convincing.
Mike
