Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > > > > [1] http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DiPs > > [2] http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DiP1 > > > > > I think this is a good idea. :) Regarding the template, I think there > should be one more section, called "Description". Then each DIP would be > organised as follows: > > Abstract: > Short summary of description, rationale and usage. > Description: > Detailed description of proposal. > Rationale: > Explanation of why proposal has been made, why the new feature > should be included. > Usage: > Examples, etc.
I agree, but think the description section should come after usage. That should be a more natural reading order... Also, I think we should list the available values for status, and possibly add sections to the DIP as it gets more mature. Off the top of my head: Draft Description section optional Stable Design Detailed description required. Major design changes should become a new draft DIP. Reaction from Walter & Co. optional Rejected Reaction from Walter & Co. required. Shouldlist specific faults Soliciting Patches Implementation thought Submitted patches (with quality remarks about each patch) Accepted Links - changeset, final docs on digitalmars.com, etc...
