Daniel Keep wrote:
Kagamin wrote:
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP5
As namespaces were proposed, a variant of them is in DIP5 now.
Oh dear, here we go.
Let's all create our own DIPs as slight variations of existing ones when
we disagree instead of actually working together!
Is there ANY reason this couldn't have been put into DIP4 as an
alternative solution?
This isn't even an objective proposal...
"Parts of DIP4 are too puristic and as a consequence - insane." No
objective reasoning given; just calling DIP4 "insane."
"Default storage is not a big deal to be so anal about it." That's
subjective. You then go on to admit that you need trivial properties
for interfaces, yet completely discount that use case.
"The {get;set;} syntax exists in C# only for reflection purposes..." No,
I'm pretty sure it exists because interfaces can't have fields, and most
accessors are trivial.
This is *exactly* why I said DIPs need to have some form of editorial
control.
Agreed. There are problems with most of the DIPs already:
DIP3 is way too brief. The Rationale is just one sentence, stating
simply that "[...] leads to strange behaviour", full stop.
DIP4 was created at too early a stage in the discussion. (That said, it
is probably the most well written one, with a good rationale section and
a comprehensive list of pros and cons.)
DIP5 is too brief, written in a very subjective style, and -- most
importantly -- unnecessary, as it's just a "reply" to DIP4. DIP5 reads
like an NG post.
(Regarding DIP3: I posted the above critique in the DIP3 thread, but it
was ignored. Indeed, DIP3 seems abandoned by its author, since it hasn't
been updated after its announcement.)
-Lars
