On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 08:30:25 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 9/4/2018 10:16 PM, Manu wrote:
I'm serious, you can have your cake, and potentially, I could
have my
cake too, and everybody would be happy... nobody would be sad.
If it is the same,
It is
I provided solutions in those threads. The incomplete example
code did not make use of them.
Those "solutions" do not satisfactorily solve the problem, hence:
I have to contort my code to undo a thing that should never have
been there. It's truly >embarrassing. I can't show this to
people.
***I can not present my work to stakeholders with a straight
face***
I don't think I could either.
I don't know why you have "no option" left.
There is one: add it to LDC, which will accept it, see
https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/2800#issuecomment-410817126 but this is a language feature we (LDC) would rather not have an upstream diff for.
This is a prime example of an industry blocker if ever there was.
Yes there has been a lot of talking past each other, but surely
you understand _what_ Manu is wanting even if you seem to think
that your workarounds (which you called solutions) are
sufficient. It is backwards compatible and solves a clear need, I
don't see why this is such a contentious issue.
