On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:56:25 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:35:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 04:16:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
If we go these DIP road, there is no coming back and this
will get in the way of a principled approach.
Then come up with an alternative DIP which shows a better way
to solve this. As it stands, it looks likely that we'll end up
with some form of DIP 74, and if you have a better proposal,
then now is probably the time to do it.
I have, other have as well, in fact there was a lengthy
discussion in private between Walter, Andrei, myself and some
other where very precise proposal has been made.
I'm sorry but that's bullshit. I'm tired of reexplaining the
same thing again and again while is it clear that nobody cares
about facts here. If people would care about facts, the DIP25
fiasco would have been enough to put the ideas back on the
table.
Well, if they won't listen, they won't listen. And if they're
wrong, we'll be worse off for it. Unfortunately, I wasn't
involved in those discussions and haven't looked into DIP 25 much
(I was too busy at the time of the major discussion for it IIRC).
So, I'm not familiar enough with it to have a properly informed
opinion. But convincing Walter and Andrei is typically pretty
difficult. They do come around eventually at least some of the
time though. So, as frustrating as such discussions can be, they
do bear fruit at least some of the time (whether it's by them
convincing you or by you convincing them). And since DIP 25 has
only been implemented with a flag rather than adding it to the
language proper yet, there's still time to convince them before
we're fully committed to it - as difficult as convincing them may
be.
- Jonathan M Davis
