On 10/9/2014 10:43 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Walter Bright via dmd-internals
<[email protected]> wrote:
if the language design change is rejected, then the PR author's coding
effort has gone to waste. We don't have the luxury of throwing peoples' work
away like that. It pains me very much when this happens.
Walter, this is the most effective way to push for decision on
enhancements. You have an awful track record at deciding on
theoretical changes. It is _supposed_ to pain you when the work gets
thrown away.
Throwing a valuable contributor's code away should not factor into a decision as
to whether a language enhancement is a good idea or not. But doing it this way
makes it a factor. This does not lead to the best decisions.
So please, please, before submitting a PR that involves a language change,
be sure you've got agreement and approval for the change. Otherwise, you
risk wasting your time in a most frustrating matter.
Following this would result in near-zero enhancement PRs. Is that
what you want?
We need to approach language changes with increasing caution, not less. We get a
lot of flak, some of it deserved, for reaching for shiny new features rather
than doing the drudgery of making existing features work correctly.
I'm also OK with others pulling PR implementations for language changes when
the language changes have already been approved.
That didn't work so well with adding the virtual keyword.
Point taken. That was a failure of process.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
