On 3/13/2014 1:16 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/13/14, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
I didn't even know about this client before the breakage.
I'm really getting tired of this argument. An unknown client (which
you still haven't named,
Companies won't trust me if whatever they say about their private business I
blather over the internet. My default behavior is, unless they give me explicit
permission, to treat my interactions with them as confidential.
so as far as I'm concerned it might as well
be just a reddit troll) comes out of the blue,
I find this accusation quite unfair. You either trust me to work in the best
interests of D, or you don't. I've been quite open in explaining the reasoning
going on. Naming isn't going to add anything.
> I mean the whole idea of client X deciding to ring up Andrei or Walter, NDAs
to not disclose their name, and make an executive decision on some
language/phobos feature.
Anyone can (and has) sent me emails about D which they wish to be confidential,
and I treat them as such, and will continue to do so. People who want to express
concerns privately may do so, and those who want to express them publicly can do
so (right here) as well.
Please also consider that the proposal for final-by-default comes from Manu,
formerly of Remedy Games. Recall that I implemented UDAs ostensibly for Manu &
Remedy, but also because I thought it was a great feature for D. But this one I
am not so convinced is great for D. The takeaway is I am certainly not doing
things just because some client asked for it and to hell with the rest of the
community - the evidence contraindicates that.
