On Saturday, 20 April 2013 at 16:11:49 UTC, Namespace wrote:
Sadly, I have to agree on this. As nice as many new feature
ideas are, they are far from priorities when there are
multiple core mechanics that are broken.
There is no reason to prioritize DIP 36. Kenji, Dicebot and I
did most of the work. The DIP is written and all necessary
information are described in detail there with examples. The
code also exists and there is even a pull request which has
passed all the tests. Thus, this proposal is linked with not
much work. Most of it was taken over by others.
Due to this, it really is not asking too much to get a note if
this pull is accepted or rejected. Of course, with detailed
justification.
How about "on hold"? (Not that I have any say in it at all)
The fact is, there's much more to any change than simply
implementing it. Changes break unexpected things. There are
always extra corner cases not considered. There are always bugs
and inconsistencies.
Although it's great that you and some others have done the
legwork to implement this proposal, it may have to wait until
other more urgent problems have been fixed.
