On 1/28/15 10:59 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
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.
It may be the case you're using different definitions of the term
"contextual keyword". Far as I can tell you want the identifier "nogc"
be recognized in certain places by the compiler as special, and
otherwise just not be special at all. That's a contextual keyword. If
that's the case you were well understood by both Walter and myself. I
happen to recognize the merit of contextual keyword in general, but
Walter has a stronger opposition to it. It doesn't seem to me this
particular application is compelling enough to warrant the precedent. --
Andrei
