On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 13:56:54 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 19 January 2016 at 18:54, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
As the length of this thread testifies, this has been
discussed at length already.
No it hasn't. I don't feel like it's been discussed at all.
I've explicitly asked both you and Andrei to justify the design
several times, no less than 5, and you haven't responded a
single time
other than repeating these same points without providing any
support
or evidence.
Andrei deliberately dodged the request, replying with something
like
"the best way to move forwards is to present code that
demonstrates
bugs". Neither of you appear to be willing to engage in
discussion
relating to the design, or how it's flawed and pointless.
It looks like you understand there's no objective justification
for
the design. I suspect you just don't want to change it now it's
in.
While I am not in the mood for mudslinging or making a heated
discussion out of this, I have to agree with Daniel and Manu
here. If I remember correctly, you never really provided any
justification (including during the original discussion back when
the feature was introduced) as to why just using the normal means
of name resolution and disambiguation in D – the module system –
is not good enough for this.
It's fine if you just say "I had a hunch that the added
complexity would be worth it by making some situations more
convenient, even though I can't provide a concrete example". Of
course that might not be particularly persuasive, but it's your
call in the end. But if you keep dodging the question, this
discussion will never come to an end.
— David
