On 10/11/15 9:57 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 18:52:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 13:51:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter and I are happy with DIP25, and the fact of the matter is we
weren't surprised more complementary work is needed. So no, I won't
acknowledge what I don't believe.
That is an empty statement. What is there to be happy about ?
Also the complementary argument pretty much destroy the best argument
you and Walter made for DIP25 : it is simple. I mean, one need to look
at the big picture. DIP25 + complementary addition is not simple anymore.
I'd say the one way to get things looked at seriously is to create a
DIP. That's no guarantee it will be accepted but there is a guarantee
that our chat at DConf is not sufficient even as a basis for further
study.
Yeah there are IRL discussion, there are many posts in the forum,
there are by mail discussions at DIP25 creation time, there are at
least one DIP already.
The only rebuttal to all of this is "Walter and I are happy with
DIP25, and the fact of the matter", while everybody else is wondering
what there is to be happy about.
Also, I'm sorry but there is no me writing once again a document about
what alternative are possible.
Could you please point to the document you have already written?
Spending hours to write documents so that
one is answered something along the line of "we are happy with the other
thing, but we can't give any reason why" is something I've engaged in
several time in already, and has no desire to indulge into this if I
have reason to think the same will happen. Your answer here are telling
me one thing: it won't be taken seriously.
There's a bit of a stalemate here. So we have:
1. You say that DIP25 is a failure. More so, you demand that is admitted
without evidence. What I see is a feature that solves one problem, and
solves it well: annotating a function that returns a reference to its
argument. The syntactic cost is low, the impact on existing code is
small, and the impact on safety is positive. Walter and I think it is
the simplest solution of all considered.
2. You refuse to write a DIP under the assumption it will not be taken
seriously. Conversely if you do write a DIP there is an expectation it
will be approved just because you put work in it. I don't think
rewarding work is the right way to go. We need to reward good work. The
"work" part (i.e. a DIP) is a prerequisite; you can't demand to
implement a complex feature based on posts and discussions.
So I'm not sure how we can move forward from here. If you want to
discuss DIP74, great, it can be discussed because it exists. My personal
opinion on DIP74 is it has holes and corner cases so it seems it doesn't
quite hit the spot. One option is to make it work, another is to take a
different attack on the problem. But we need the appropriate DIP.
Andrei
