On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 08:39:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If someone writes non-robust software, D allows them to do
that. However, I won't leave unchallenged attempts to pass such
stuff off as robust.
Nor will I accept such practices in Phobos, because, as this
thread clearly shows, there are a lot of misunderstandings
about what robust software is. Phobos needs to CLEARLY default
towards solid, robust practice.
Would it help to clarify my intentions in this discussion if I
said that, on this note, I entirely agree -- and nothing I have
said in this discussion is intended to be an argument about how
Phobos should be designed?
