www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

reply Cecil Ward <d cecilward.com> writes:
Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? 
My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care 
about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do 
not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over the 
place and the blocks can have complex code in them using 
statements and multiple statements.
Aug 30 2017
next sibling parent reply ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
Cecil Ward wrote:


 Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My vote 
 is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the alleged 
 verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate the existing 
 syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks can have 
 complex code in them using statements and multiple statements.


it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be 
deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before expressing your 
opinion is the prerequisite...
Aug 30 2017
parent reply Cecil Ward <d cecilward.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:19:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:


 it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be 
 deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before 
 expressing your opinion is the prerequisite...


Good to know. A relief.

I am full of pain drugs and missed the no-deprecation thing when 
I inadequately skimmed the proposal. RTFM as always applies. :-)
Aug 30 2017
parent ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
Cecil Ward wrote:


 On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:19:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:


 it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be 
 deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before expressing your 
 opinion is the prerequisite...


 Good to know. A relief.

 I am full of pain drugs and missed the no-deprecation thing when I 
 inadequately skimmed the proposal. RTFM as always applies. :-)


it happens sometimes. nwm. ;-)
Aug 30 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn" <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:16:11PM +0000, Cecil Ward via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:

 Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My
 vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the
 alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate
 the existing syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks
 can have complex code in them using statements and multiple
 statements.


DIP 1009 does not propose to deprecate the existing syntax.  In fact, it
even recommends the existing syntax for non-trivial contracts.


T

-- 
To provoke is to call someone stupid; to argue is to call each other stupid.
Aug 30 2017
prev sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:

 Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? 
 My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care 
 about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever 
 do not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over 
 the place and the blocks can have complex code in them using 
 statements and multiple statements.


DIPs are not voted on. The decision to accept or reject rests 
with Walter & Andrei. The place to discuss DIP features is in the 
preliminary reviews. DIP 1009 had two prelim rounds. The feedback 
phase of the formal review is for final remarks from the 
community (but not discussion or debate), so the current DIP 1009 
thread is the place to leave any thoughts you'd like Walter & 
Andrei to consider, particularly if you missed the prelims.

That said, this DIP doesn't deprecate the existing syntax. The 
new syntax is intended to be lowered to it.
Aug 30 2017
parent reply Cecil Ward <d cecilward.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:

 DIPs are not voted on.


Thanks for letting me know, answers my question.

Our leaders would perhaps find a simple pair of numbers to be a 
useful additional metric? Demand level, or the opposite, isn't 
always that obvious, unless you are Professor X.
Aug 30 2017
parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:50:22 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:

 On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:

 DIPs are not voted on.


 Thanks for letting me know, answers my question.

 Our leaders would perhaps find a simple pair of numbers to be a 
 useful additional metric? Demand level, or the opposite, isn't 
 always that obvious, unless you are Professor X.


Unlikely. From my interactions with them, demand or popularity 
have little to do with their decision making. That was the case 
even before we had a formalized process.
Aug 30 2017