On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 at 08:12:39 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
I... think you misunderstood me? I shouldn't have used the word
'proposals', I should have said 'suggestions'.
What I meant was "I think it would be better for the current
version of DIP 1009 to include a 'Rejected alternative
syntaxes' that would include a summary of the previously
discussed suggestions for improving contract readability."
MysticZach argues that such a section would be pointless since
the language authors read the previous version of DIP 1009, but
I still think adding it would be a good idea (for posterity and
to streamline discussions in this thread).
I don't know. DIPs have both a forward-looking and a
backward-looking aspect. The forward is to convince the language
authors of the need/value of a specific language change. The
backward is to record a history of discussions so that people can
learn why things are the way they are. They are both valuable in
their own way, but I think the forward-looking aspect is more
valuable. I'd like some guidance from the leadership as to the
important of the backward-looking aspect of DIPs. For example,
DIP1003 was actually rewritten to excise the alternatives and
keep only the one adopted. The motive given was that people
looking for the history could examine prior versions of the DIP.
I guess the motive is that too much history can end up cluttering
the important information.
That said, I think that making good decisions for the language
far outweighs any concerns about DIPs themselves. So we should
really be focusing on that.
