On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 21:15:20 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/7/2016 1:32 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
a lousy 28% of DIPs are either definitively closed or
accepted.
I understand that is frustrating. It happens to mine as well,
though I am less bothered by it.
It's a question of framing.
Consider the regression list:
https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&list_id=208862&query_format=advanced
There are currently 34 issues on it, where we implemented a
feature and inadvertently broke something. There are constant
complaints on the forum that we have not "fully" implemented
things.
I agree 100% with the sentiment. We have way too many 95%
things. On the other hand, many DIPs are not about implement
this new groundbreaking thing, but about tightening loose
screws.
A good chunk of the problem is that development is made using
the wack a mole methodology rather than a more principled
approach. Having a DIP specifying at least the intended end
goal would be beneficial. Such DIPs would for instance include
DIP27/28/30 that change very little of the behavior, but fix a
typesystem hole and provide a principled approach to what we
already do.
Maybe you should make a DIP for that? ;)
