On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 16:22:46 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
The decision was primarily influenced by the lack of consensus
over the implementation and the syntax demonstrated in the two
review threads.
That's not true, we had consensus minus one - the community
rallied around just one small tweak to the proposal.
https://forum.dlang.org/post/r1emt0$2rpk$1...@digitalmars.com "Now
that is something I could use."
https://forum.dlang.org/post/gvckofpbecslxwlle...@forum.dlang.org
"This looks really good."
https://forum.dlang.org/post/bawaaxojdtvsguade...@forum.dlang.org
"A different beast is Adam / Steven proposal ."
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1029.1580903463.31109.digitalmar...@puremagic.com
"Adam/Steven's proposal is *so* much better,"
https://forum.dlang.org/post/vhhumlsdimntzxnkx...@forum.dlang.org
"hope we can get instead the proposal from Adam / Steven."
https://forum.dlang.org/post/oswkdwpocuvcvdrxp...@forum.dlang.org
"The implementation specified here is, more or less, what I would
actually want out of string interpolation in D."
Each of those posts are from different people. And if you go
through the thread, there's even more.
Sure, there's some people who would prefer % over $, or {} over
(), or implicit over explicit toString/idup, but at the end of
the day, we were all willing to put aside our remaining
differences and accept that not 100% of people will be 100% happy
to get a solution that 90% of people can be 90% happy with.
There's just one person who didn't appear to even engage with the
idea. Guess who.
As the DIP author, Walter also rejected the suggestion to go
with an implementation that resolves to a library template. He
sees that as equivalent to AST macros, a feature which he has
previously rejected.
How is `foo!str, args...` a macro when `str, args...` is not?
Obviously, to the objective reader, neither is a macro - both are
simply argument lists. Just one is (potentially) type-safe and
the other isn't.
