On 4/6/17 9:05 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> You can point me as the lazy bum here, but there is a reasons why the lifetime ML died. You ignored all proposal that weren't your own and people stopped participating. I'm just the only one persistent enough to continue pointing it out.

Persistent is best when it leads to palpable results. We seem to be in an impasse that is difficult to overcome: discussing complex language design matters is tenuous over forum communication, but investing effort upfront into a proposal that may not be approved is a high cost.

One thing that would be great to factor out of the conversation is the finger pointing and accusations. I have absolutely no doubt you have the best interests at heart. On our side, we are here to help the D community best we can. Yes, there are ideas we don't consider good to pursue, but that doesn't automatically make us neither malicious nor incompetent.

There is this whole "you are ignoring others' ideas" and "we demand that this is listened to" that is sadly quite harmful. There is not ignoring as much as the difficulty on working on someone else's rough idea, while they simultaneously refuse to flesh it out. Going by our design sensibilities we consider our take on Exception workable. We know how to pursue it, make a detailed DIP for it, accompany it with a proof of concept implementation, and deploy it. At the same time we have gathered a very hazy understanding of your ideas from a few posts lacking detail - posts that even you can't find, refer, and formalize. We don't think it's reasonable that you consider us at fault for not pursuing your ideas.


Andrei

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 16:39:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 4/6/17 9:05 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> There is this whole "you are ignoring others' ideas" and "we demand that this is listened to" that is sadly quite harmful. There is not ignoring as much as the difficulty on working on someone else's rough idea, while they simultaneously refuse to flesh it out.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a different between saying "You should flesh out your idea" and "We're not going to respond formally before you submit a DIP".

There were multiple topic on the matter back then. This is one i have saved in my bookmarks. Others shouldn't be too hard to find.

https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kpgilxyyrrluxpepepcg@forum.dlang.org

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 16:39:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> There is not ignoring as much as the difficulty on working on someone else's rough idea, while they simultaneously refuse to flesh it out.

AKA: I had this idea/criticism on some thread that I'm not going to provide a link for and you should know exactly what I am talking about.

On 4/6/2017 6:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> It was specified to a fairly good extent in the lifetime ML (especialy the scope
> part, was specified in extreme details) and got ignored.

When referencing previous discussions, please include a link. Having people guess at where such discussion took place (github? wiki? bugzilla? n.g.? IRC? DConf?), and which thread it might be, is not helpful. The last time upthread I tried to find one such you referred to I came up empty-handed.

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:54:40PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 4/6/2017 6:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> > It was specified to a fairly good extent in the lifetime ML (especialy the scope part, was specified in extreme details) and got ignored.
> 
> When referencing previous discussions, please include a link. Having people guess at where such discussion took place (github? wiki? bugzilla? n.g.?  IRC? DConf?), and which thread it might be, is not helpful. The last time upthread I tried to find one such you referred to I came up empty-handed.

Try this for starters:

	https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kpgilxyyrrluxpepepcg@forum.dlang.org?page=1


T

-- 
The best way to destroy a cause is to defend it poorly.

On 4/6/2017 1:23 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:54:40PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 4/6/2017 6:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> It was specified to a fairly good extent in the lifetime ML
>>> (especialy the scope part, was specified in extreme details) and got
>>> ignored.
>>
>> When referencing previous discussions, please include a link. Having
>> people guess at where such discussion took place (github? wiki?
>> bugzilla? n.g.?  IRC? DConf?), and which thread it might be, is not
>> helpful. The last time upthread I tried to find one such you referred
>> to I came up empty-handed.
>
> Try this for starters:
>
> 	https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kpgilxyyrrluxpepepcg@forum.dlang.org?page=1

deadalnix?

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:07:52PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 4/6/2017 1:23 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:54:40PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > > On 4/6/2017 6:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> > > > It was specified to a fairly good extent in the lifetime ML (especialy the scope part, was specified in extreme details) and got ignored.
> > > 
> > > When referencing previous discussions, please include a link. Having people guess at where such discussion took place (github? wiki?  bugzilla? n.g.?  IRC? DConf?), and which thread it might be, is not helpful. The last time upthread I tried to find one such you referred to I came up empty-handed.
> > 
> > Try this for starters:
> > 
> > 	https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kpgilxyyrrluxpepepcg@forum.dlang.org?page=1
> 
> deadalnix?

You were asking for a link to deadalnix's original discussion, and that's the link I found (somebody else also posted a link to the same discussion).

He also alluded to the "lifetime ML", I'm not 100% sure but I think he may have been referring to these discussions (or related ones in the same mailing list):

	http://forum.dlang.org/thread/56301A8C.1060808@erdani.com

(Sorry I couldn't pull up a more specific link, my office network's corporate firewall has completely hosed SSL negotiations so google doesn't work anymore as they've switched to SSL by default.)


T

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

On 4/6/2017 2:18 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> You were asking for a link to deadalnix's original discussion, and
> that's the link I found (somebody else also posted a link to the same
> discussion).

Only deadalnix can confirm that's what he's talking about.

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 22:11:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/6/2017 2:18 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> You were asking for a link to deadalnix's original discussion, and
>> that's the link I found (somebody else also posted a link to the same
>> discussion).
>
> Only deadalnix can confirm that's what he's talking about.

Yes this: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kpgilxyyrrluxpepepcg@forum.dlang.org
Also this: https://forum.dlang.org/post/kluaojijixhwigoujeip@forum.dlang.org

I also produced a fairly detailed spec of how lifetime can be tracked in the lifetime ML. This address scope and do not require owned by itself. Considering the compiler infer what it calls "unique" already, it could solve the @nogc Exception problem to some extent without the owned part. Because it is in a ML, I cannot post a link.