On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 18:27:34 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
That's not a misunderstanding. Your proposal has been
understood. It can be made to work. That doesn't necessarily
make it desirable. I don't think it's particularly helpful and
Walter is against it, so simply put it won't happen. Let it go.
Thanks for it and keep the good ideas coming. -- Andrei
I don't have a problem with letting things go. What I have a
problem with is poor communication. Walter never gave me a
"valid" reason for why he didn't like the proposal. I'm totally
ok if it gets rejected, but I have no idea why it was rejected.
If anything, I just want to understand so that I make better
decisions in the future.
When I say he misunderstood I say that because the reason he gave
for disliking the proposal doesn't make sense. He's using the
"Straw Man" logical fallacy. He's attacking my proposal by
assuming it's something that it isn't. He keeps mentioning
keywords and "context-sensitive" tokens but my proposal has
nothing to do with those things (even by his own definition of
them). Quite frustrating.
I hope you see that I'm just trying to understand. I don't care
if I'm wrong, I just want someone to tell my why I'm wrong. And
when someone asks me why we weren't able to make function
attributes that weren't keywords, I can give them an answer.
