On 01/25/13 08:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/25/13 2:12 AM, Artur Skawina wrote: >> On 01/24/13 21:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> On 1/24/13 2:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote: >>>> Trying to make arguments you don't like go away and silencing the messenger >>>> is your MO. >>> >>> Now that's what's called "ad hominem". >> >> No, it's not - it's just stating the facts; this was not the first such >> incident. > > Of course it is. The definition is simple enough, e.g. from Wikipedia: An ad > hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an > argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their > argument.
Hmm, I can see how you could view this as an ad hominem, given that definition, but it's not meant to be one and actually isn't - it has no bearing on the @property nor ()-less calls issues; this is just about the process. Remember how you originally replied to my message, after removing everything but one sentence, which was clearly both a summary of my subjective position and deliberately phrased in a way to encourage at least some consideration wrt $subject by others making a decision. This isn't a new discussion, there's no need to restate the same arguments, from other threads, over and over again. Your response didn't provide any counterargument nor opinion on the subject; instead you chose to complain about the form and - I have no choice but to assume deliberately - misinterpret it. And asked me not to 'do that', in an attempt to manipulate the discussion. Crying "Ad Hominem!" now, after I point out that such tactics are not really helping to foster discussion, won't make it one, sorry. /I/ have no problem ignoring your comments, but others may not be as thick-skinned or not view D from the same perspective, and not willing to deal with that kind of arrogance. The number of D contributors is low enough, why drive potential ones away? >> and the choice needs to stay with the callee. But the distinction is >> "sane/insane" >> for a reason - there's judgment, taste and common sense involved. >> Trusting every programmer to get it right won't work, unfortunately. > > I'd say "sane/insane" is pushing it. Normally, I'd probably agree, but in the context of removing @property, but not implementing correct accessors nor enforcing calling syntax "insane" is appropriate. It's "sane/insane", because absolute terms such as "right/wrong" would be too strong; there is a large subjective component to it. artur
