On 11/18/2016 06:09 PM, pineapple wrote:
> There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the DIP
> process already made by others. I will be submitting no more DIPs or
> engaging in the process in any way unless and until it is significantly
> changed.
There seems to be a
On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:10:53 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote:
> > On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >> Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature
> >> would need to be
On 11/18/16 12:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What could we have done in the particular case of DIP2002 to make things
better?
s/2002/1002/
On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature
would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of
usefulness.
Please follow the link for the full review text
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical
feature would need to be include qualitatively new
motivation/evidence of usefulness.
Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale:
On 11/17/2016 7:30 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 15:26:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
Regardless of the outcome, I just want to commend whoever wrote the rejection
text* on doing such a clear and comprehensive job. I'm sure it must be
disappointing for a DIP author to have it
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 15:26:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
Regardless of the outcome, I just want to commend whoever wrote
the rejection text* on doing such a clear and comprehensive
job. I'm sure it must be disappointing for a DIP author to have
it rejected, but detailed, constructive
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical
feature would need to be include qualitatively new
motivation/evidence of usefulness.
Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review
We do exception tests like this: http://dpaste.com/0EAZQE4
On 11/17/2016 06:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature would
need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of usefulness.
Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale:
Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature would
need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of usefulness.
Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review
signature.asc
11 matches
Mail list logo
