On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 19:46:33 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
I'd say we just drop it. It's a waste of time to talk about it.
There's no proof on why the idea isn't accepted, and there's no
need for one.
I just wrote out of empathy. As a newcomer to language
communities (including this one) I've had literally dozens of
ideas on how they can be improved. All looked great to myself
at the time, and of them some felt actually unassailably good.
So good, in fact, that I'd attach a sense of importance to them
and was convinced that explaining and advertising them well was
essential, and that opponents didn't really understand their
advantages. For the most part they were in reality weak ideas
of a n00b, ideas of greatly overstated merit, and acknowledging
that has made me better.
Andrei
Maybe this is a weak proposal but I don't know how to realize
that unless I ask the people who oppose it to explain themselves.
How else will I learn?
My proposal would be a nice feature but like I've said, it's not
a huge deal. There's so many more important things to worry
about. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone
to explain why they do or don't like something. I believe I'm
being pragmatic here. What's frustrating to me isn't that my
proposal wasn't accepted, its that it was so hard to communicate
over such a simple issue. It took so much time and everything
had to be said over and over again.
But at least I have a reason why it was rejected. Now I can tell
people, the leadership in D does not like to have a word be a
function attribute in one place and normal identifier in another
place. I would like to understand why the leadership does not
want this but since there are more important things, and time is
a finite resource, consider this issue "let go".
Thanks Andrei, I appreciate your input on this. Now if you can
get that list of high priority issues out so I can know what I
should be working on that would be great!
