On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 19:17:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
There's one big difference. The proposal I put forth is fairly
complete, and I am well along implementing it. deadalnix's
requires a great deal of further work just to figure out what
it means - as presented, it is not much more than an idea.
Nor is it a simple idea. It will upend D's type system. It'll
likely affect much of the semantic code in the compiler, and
will require a lot of retrofitting in Phobos. Who knows how
extensive that will be.
I understand. It was a major change, and you likely felt the
risks were not worth it.
I don't know any language process that would accept it as it
stands - it would get bounced back with "needs more work".
Yes, but if you had detailed which areas, he might of been more
receptive.
Somebody has to work on it to move it forward - who do you
propose should do it? We don't have a team anywhere whose job
it is to create detailed proposals based on other peoples'
ideas (which appear in the forum every day). Things rarely move
forward unless a champion for it self-selects with the will and
motivation to push it relentlessly.
That sets a high bar. Can you give an example when this has
worked well, or have they been mostly minor changes?
(The general attitude of the C++ committee is if no champion
emerges for a proposal that is willing to fix it and address
all concerns about it and fight for it, then the proposal is
not worth considering. It works for them.)
So this is your and Andreis approach? If so, perhaps you want to
document it, so everyone understands.
If you or anyone else wants to be the champion for deadalnix's
idea, I encourage you to do so. Collaborate here or in any way
that works for you. I'm not going to shut you or anyone down on
such discussions. I have already done a review of it and
identified where it needs more work, so the next step is up to
you.
No, its his big idea, and I don't understand it well enough to
push it.
But I also think that your vision of the language, seems to be
fluid at present, with the requirements to support a GC, ARC, and
the ability to remove the run-time. Again perhaps you and Andrei
want to confirm this direction.
My intent for this post, was to bring to both your attentions,
how this was perceived by the outsiders/community, and a
perceived (if incorrect) double standard. That was all.
(I also did not submit it as a DIP because the DIP process at
the time was in limbo due to Dicebot exiting it. Now that Mike
Parker is the new DIP czar, things should be moving again.)
Good to hear.
