Thread overview
DIP 1039--Static Arrays with Inferred Length--Withdrawn
Sep 04
russhy
Sep 07
Dukc
Sep 07
Dukc
September 04

The author of DIP 1039, "Static Arrays with Inferred Length", has requested that the DIP be withdrawn from the review process. After the first round of community review, he felt the general response was negative, and that he needed a strong argument to show the cost-benefit of the proposed feature over the existing library solution, std.array.staticArray. He was unable to formulate such an argument.

The policy on resurrecting Withdrawn DIPs is described in the DIP process documentation. Anyone who would like to resurrect this DIP, or any that has been withdrawn, should contact me to determine how best to do so.

September 04

On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 07:09:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

>

The author of DIP 1039, "Static Arrays with Inferred Length", has requested that the DIP be withdrawn from the review process.

And here's a link to the DIP.

September 04

On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 08:14:49 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

>

On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 07:09:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

>

The author of DIP 1039, "Static Arrays with Inferred Length", has requested that the DIP be withdrawn from the review process.

And here's a link to the DIP.

It's such a shame because the DIP was very nice and the feature very much needed

It's disappointing to hear that "the community" response was negative, how can someone be against the DIP? this is beyond me

>

The DIP fails to provide a rationale as to why std.array.staticArray is insufficient.

yeah, always STD people the problem...

September 04

On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 12:19:13 UTC, russhy wrote:

>

It's disappointing to hear that "the community" response was negative, how can someone be against the DIP? this is beyond me

Some people wanted it, some people didn't. That's life. That's true for every DIP, sometimes weighted in one direction over the other. You can read the feedback and discussion threads to see what specific points were made for and against the DIP.

> >

The DIP fails to provide a rationale as to why std.array.staticArray is insufficient.

yeah, always STD people the problem...

I don't know what that means, but the DIP author agreed that the criticism you've quoted was valid. He felt he was unable to counter it sufficiently and therefore would be unable to make a valid case for the DIP.

The DIP has been withdrawn, not rejected. So if you feel strongly enough about it and you think you can provide a convincing motivation for implementing it in preference to the existing library solution, please get in touch with me.

September 07
On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 07:09:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> [snip]

Regarding DIPs, any news on status of DIP 1038? It has been on formal assesment over three months now.


September 07
On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 13:00:43 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 07:09:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> Regarding DIPs, any news on status of DIP 1038? It has been on formal assesment over three months now.

It's been accepted with a request for changes. Walter and Paul are working out the details.
September 07
On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:06:48 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> It's been accepted with a request for changes. Walter and Paul are working out the details.

Congratulations Paul!
September 08
On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:19:23 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 15:06:48 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> It's been accepted with a request for changes. Walter and Paul are working out the details.
>
> Congratulations Paul!

This is why I didn't announce it yet. It isn't formally accepted until the changes are finalized. I have no reason to doubt that will be the end result, but there's always a chance that it won't be.