digitalmars.D.learn - DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular
- Cecil Ward (6/6) Aug 30 2017 Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009?
- ketmar (4/9) Aug 30 2017 it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be
- Cecil Ward (4/7) Aug 30 2017 Good to know. A relief.
- ketmar (2/9) Aug 30 2017 it happens sometimes. nwm. ;-)
- H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn (6/12) Aug 30 2017 DIP 1009 does not propose to deprecate the existing syntax. In fact, it
- Mike Parker (10/16) Aug 30 2017 DIPs are not voted on. The decision to accept or reject rests
- Cecil Ward (5/7) Aug 30 2017 Thanks for letting me know, answers my question.
- Mike Parker (4/12) Aug 30 2017 Unlikely. From my interactions with them, demand or popularity
Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks can have complex code in them using statements and multiple statements.
Aug 30 2017
Cecil Ward wrote:Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks can have complex code in them using statements and multiple statements.it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before expressing your opinion is the prerequisite...
Aug 30 2017
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:19:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before expressing your opinion is the prerequisite...Good to know. A relief. I am full of pain drugs and missed the no-deprecation thing when I inadequately skimmed the proposal. RTFM as always applies. :-)
Aug 30 2017
Cecil Ward wrote:On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:19:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:it happens sometimes. nwm. ;-)it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before expressing your opinion is the prerequisite...Good to know. A relief. I am full of pain drugs and missed the no-deprecation thing when I inadequately skimmed the proposal. RTFM as always applies. :-)
Aug 30 2017
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:16:11PM +0000, Cecil Ward via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks can have complex code in them using statements and multiple statements.DIP 1009 does not propose to deprecate the existing syntax. In fact, it even recommends the existing syntax for non-trivial contracts. T -- To provoke is to call someone stupid; to argue is to call each other stupid.
Aug 30 2017
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks can have complex code in them using statements and multiple statements.DIPs are not voted on. The decision to accept or reject rests with Walter & Andrei. The place to discuss DIP features is in the preliminary reviews. DIP 1009 had two prelim rounds. The feedback phase of the formal review is for final remarks from the community (but not discussion or debate), so the current DIP 1009 thread is the place to leave any thoughts you'd like Walter & Andrei to consider, particularly if you missed the prelims. That said, this DIP doesn't deprecate the existing syntax. The new syntax is intended to be lowered to it.
Aug 30 2017
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: DIPs are not voted on.Thanks for letting me know, answers my question. Our leaders would perhaps find a simple pair of numbers to be a useful additional metric? Demand level, or the opposite, isn't always that obvious, unless you are Professor X.
Aug 30 2017
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:50:22 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:Unlikely. From my interactions with them, demand or popularity have little to do with their decision making. That was the case even before we had a formalized process.On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: DIPs are not voted on.Thanks for letting me know, answers my question. Our leaders would perhaps find a simple pair of numbers to be a useful additional metric? Demand level, or the opposite, isn't always that obvious, unless you are Professor X.
Aug 30 2017