On 9/28/16 6:50 AM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 10:45:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Assertions such as "makes the code cleaner" are likely to add value
only if backed up by evidence (case studies, realistic examples).
This is based on my anecdotal experience. I also posted an example in
the original thread which was included in the DIP.
Porting motivating arguments from other languages is helpful only if
put in the context of D, e.g. Python does not have "scope" statements,
which makes matters different across the two languages.
It was already shown in this thread how scope statements do not achieve
the same effect as the try/else statement; the point still stands.
Thanks, Jack. Here I'm solely focused on making DIP1002 stronger so I've
sent a number of suggestions that I believe would improve the proposal.
Although you are free to argue here that in fact the proposal already is
strong enough, this is not a "minimal requirements" setup in which a DIP
is good to go as long as it passes a checklist. The demand here is
elastic; the stronger the DIP, the better. Once submitted, if rejected,
the only way to propose a similar feature is by authoring a new proposal
with a completely novel perspective. So official review is an important
milestone with a high bar. -- Andrei
