On 02/14/2011 02:29 AM, Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 02:01:53 +0300, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com>
wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
But note I was replying to your reply to Denis who asked specifically for
demangled names for missing symbols. This by itself would be a useful
improvement.
I agree with that, but there's a caveat. I did such a thing years ago for C++
and Optlink. Nobody cared, including the people who asked for that feature.
It's a bit demotivating to bother doing that again.
Many people are unthankful by nature. They tell about missing features while
taking existing ones as granted.
It doesn't mean no one cares about them. If no one would care, why would we
even discuss those features?
Very often, heavily discussed designs are somewhat good. When they are truely
bad, one does not even know where/how to start critics... We just feel their
wrongness, but expressing it is hard time, even more proposing inprovements; so
that we wish for a blank page.
Good designs show their bugs much more obviously, everyone can enter the critic
dance ;-)
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
