On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 03:29:20 UTC, JS wrote:
It's not his proposal. The burden of proof is on you.
I would think that if you really cared about the D lang you
would want it to be the best it can...
In any case, I know very well that it is quite useless for me
to make suggestions for D... but I'm definitely not going to
sit here and type up use cases because you are too lazy, don't
have the foresight, or don't care to think about the issue. The
fact is, I'm most likely not going to be able to convince you
to accept anything I say because:
1. Something only useful to you is acceptable. You don't find
this useful because you haven't used this construct, hence it
is not acceptable. (This is generally known as close minded)
2. Generally things I "propose" are simplifications of
semantics. I like to work efficiently. My proposes can be
accomplished long hand... and for you, that is good enough...
Either because you do not use such semantics and hence get
tired of the inefficiency or don't like simplifications because
you inanely feel they take away from the language by adding too
much "overhead"(in some form or another).
I don't have an opinion on this proposal one way or the other.
I'm merely pointing out the way the process tends to work around
here. If you have a serious proposal, it's your responsibility to
present use cases for it. Others quite possibly will do so as
well if they agree with you. Because it's not me, or Dicebot, or
any of the other community members you have to convince (though
it does help to have them championing your cause). It's Walter
and Andrei who will ultimately give the thumbs up or down.
So if you want your proposals to be seriously considered for
implementation, back them up with use cases. If not, then let
them languish.
