Leandro Lucarella Wrote: > > Yes, that's important information too. I might add some of this > suggestions to the template. Do you think any of this should be present in > the metadata? I think maybe the target version of the language, but since > D1 is not allowed to evolve, I think the target version of the language > will always be the one in development, so I'm not sure about the utility > of that (considering that the information on in what version the DIP was > implemented will be present for Accepted DIPs). >
Yes, I think the target language version and/or component/library/tool/etc. should be in the metadata (as they are in Bugzilla), since there are many occasions where we're only interested in a subset of what's being discussed. With respect to breaking changes in stable versions -- I know the party line is not to allow them, but their proposal and discussion is often fruitful. And I think they'll be proposed whether they're allowed or not! > > The Java Community Process (which is very formal and glacially slow) > > uses a question based format that may be helpful here too. (I mean the > > list of questions -- not that we should use questions.) One of their > > questions is "Why isn't this need met by existing specifications?". > > Proposers might consider this -- it could separate the bicycle shed > > ideas from more fundamental ones. > > I think that's what the Rationale is for. > Yes, I agree. It's just a suggestion to get people to think about what they're proposing. New capabilities in the language are more important (to me) than doing old things in a new way. :-) Paul
