On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:45 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 1/24/2019 1:31 AM, Manu wrote: > > This process is pretty unsatisfying, because it ships off to a > > black-box committee, who were apparently able to misunderstand the > > substance of the proposal and then not seek clarification, and despite > > the only legitimate issue from my perspective being easily corrected, > > it's been suggested to start a whole new DIP. > > It's no problem if you want to rework the existing text, just submit it as a > new > DIP.
This process has a long and deep pipe, why should it be a new DIP? There's nothing from the rejection text that would motivate me to change any words... Is it that you reject it 'in principle'? If so, there's nothing I can ever do about that. This took a substantial amount of my life, and you could have sought clarification, or a revision before a rejection. The rejection appears to be premised by misunderstanding more than anything, and a one very real (but isolated) technical issue that I believe can be corrected readily enough without affecting the surrounding text. The only improvement I could make is to better fold the discussion from the community review into the core text, but it's not like that digest wasn't already right there during consideration. I have no idea how you guys managed to edit and re-frame my DIP as applying to expressions? You removed the semicolons from the statements, and then told me I had no idea what I was doing, mixing expressions with statements that way... why did you do that?