On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: >> >> retard, el 23 de noviembre a las 17:34 me escribiste: >>> >>> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:18:05 -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote: >>> >>>> Andrei Alexandrescu, el 22 de noviembre a las 17:11 me escribiste: >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I think Chad's proposal has not been discussed here before >>>>> being implemented, which makes it more difficult to accept. >>>> >>>> I think the exact opposite. It's much easier to accept (or reject) >>>> something that have an actual implementation. You can talk about >>>> something real, not vaporware. I wish all proposals made here were >>>> proposed with a patch. >>>> >>>> Of course that's a lot of work and people usually don't want to make the >>>> effort to write a patch if chances are it will be rejected. But if the >>>> rules are clear ("your patch can be rejected"), I think you should >>>> encourage feature proposal with proof-of-concept patch. >>> >>> The fact that a patch already exists does not make the design decision >>> any better. If we all started writing crappy, contradicting extensions and >>> Walter had to accept everything, D would quickly sink. There are only a >>> handful of active members in this community that have enough experience and >>> skills to propose any good features at this point of d development cycle. >> >> And what I said above doesn't contradict this, on the contrary. >> >> In other OSS projects, almost the *only* way to ask for a feature is >> providing a patch. Then the feature is discussed (and most of the time >> discarded). Having a patch only improves the decision making process. >> >> Again, and in case it's hard to understand, I'm not saying the any patch >> should be accepted. Even more, I don't think Chad's patched should be >> accepted, I also think introducing case !: is a bad idea. I'm just saying >> that the patch was mostly turned down because he didn't asked for other >> devs permission to make the patch, not because of the quality of the patch >> (or the feature) itself. That discourages people to make patches, and >> I think that's *really* bad. >> >> Again, that was only my perception, maybe this was not the intention of >> the people who wrote the messages. > > I understand and agree. One issue we're facing right now is that the > publication of the D source is relatively recent and the number of > contributors is relatively low. In this context, if we required anyone who > ever wants to propose a feature to also provide a patch we'd pretty much > kill the traffic on this group. I look forward to the day when that request > will become reasonable. > > The positive side remains: Chad now knows enough about the implementation to > accommodate any change to the design. > > At any rate, after having discussed this more with Walter, it looks like the > switch semantics is here to stay. He claims to use fall through fairly often > (in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary) and finds the notion > that you need to wrote "goto case x;" just before "case x:" completely > stupid. I disagree but I also want to carefully pick my fights so I'll leave > this matter to others.
How would Walter feel about case continue; or continue case; ?? --bb
