{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1411","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/dotnet/csharplang","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1411/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1411/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1411/events","html_url":"https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1411","id":308195284,"number":1411,"title":"Add Interface IDeconstructible","user":{"login":"dangi12012","id":25986308,"avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/25986308?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012","html_url":"https://github.com/dangi12012","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dangi12012/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":78,"created_at":"2018-03-23T22:21:41Z","updated_at":"2018-05-12T19:29:19Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"interface IDeconstructible<T, T1>\r\n{\r\n           public void Deconstruct(out T name, out T1 lname)\r\n}\r\n//Repeat for T1 - T16 like Func<T,T1...\r\n\r\nI really dont like how C# to expects you to have magically named methods for anything. This should be 100% clear by the use of an Interface"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/dotnet/csharplang/issues/comments/388577511","html_url":"https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1411#issuecomment-388577511","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1411","id":388577511,"user":{"login":"thiagomajesk","id":13930952,"avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/13930952?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk","html_url":"https://github.com/thiagomajesk","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/thiagomajesk/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-05-12T19:29:19Z","updated_at":"2018-05-12T19:29:19Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"@jnm2 \r\n\r\n> Just want to point out that “if you care to” is an argumentative tone which drowns out the signals you wanted to communicate, and there are examples of this in your responses to the others.\r\n\r\nThis can be a poor choice of words, mainly because I'm a non-native speaker. So the only thing I can do about is to apologize if this came across the wrong way ;)\r\n\r\n@CyrusNajmabadi\r\n\r\n> I cannot speak for HaloFour, but seeing him in many issues, i can say that i do not get the sense that he \"here to win the argument\"\r\n\r\nI was actually addressing that to you because that was my perception of your approach, not the way you have described you want it to be. Btw, I've read other Issues you have participated and this seems to be the general sense, so is not just me. Maybe you could reevaluate the way you are expecting to communicate your intentions.\r\n\r\n> THat's why i spent a lot of time giving many different examples to try to help make things click for you. However, even when i responded, you lashed at at me. I never treated you in a disrespectful fashion\r\n\r\nMaybe you didn't realize that, but like I pointed before, some of your comments really came across in a harsh fashion (like you've perceived some of mine) and maybe wasn't your intent either.\r\nBut just the fact that the information you provided was not \"clicking\" for me, is a good demonstration that perhaps you should have been more straight to the point like @HaloFour did while trying to address my understanding of the problem. (And this is why I pointed out I didn't think you had the proper \"care\" to address the issue).\r\n\r\n> >Although I have to reinforce that if you consider communication theory: Whoever is trying to provide >> information is responsible for the way it gets to the target.\r\n> \r\n> This goes both ways :)\r\n\r\nOf course it does, but since you had the upper hand regarding the information of how all makes sense (for being in the design team), you are more responsible for making the context clear, while I'm only responsible for making my current understanding of the matter clear - and that blame is one me for the parts that apply. \r\nAnd you have complained about me jumping to conclusions, but how can I be to blame if I'm making my best effort to understand things you're are explaining partially a concept I'm not aware of!?\r\nIs like explaining someone how gas fuels your special-car while expecting someone that doesn't know how you're special-engine works. For sure you can give a good explanation full of details that make sense for whoever is involved in the project, but it won't do much for the \"curious\" person who's asking.\r\nAnd the responsibility is on the person with more information to know how to approach the other one.\r\n\r\n> > Well, those are just a few examples.\r\n> \r\n> Every one of those examples was actually addressed in the thread. Often with many examples and deep explanations as to why it was felt that that perspective brought in more cons than pros. :)\r\n\r\nEven though you say that you have addressed those questions, just until @HaloFour jumped into the thread to explain objectively what and how I was getting the wrong concept that things were made clear. So, can we agree that maybe you could have tried a different approach?\r\n\r\n> In such a discussion it is very difficult to communicate because i only have your words to gauge your understanding. In a face to face conversation, i would be able to pick up on an enormous number of clues as to what was going on. But here, i can only use what you say. And so, when you are silent and do not actually address the feedback and questions about your points, it makes the conversation much more difficult and ambiguous.\r\n\r\nYes, I agree with that. But I can escalate that for both parts and ambiguity will still happen if you do not try to address the problem from the ground up and instead wait for feedback on something I may not know how to respond to. Again, like @HaloFour did with a lot less grasp of the conversation than you; he has picked those clues and addresses the problem very quickly.\r\n\r\n>Consider how confusing that can make things and how that puts hte explainer in an even more difficult position as i now need to consider all of those above '4' cases across many parts of the conversation when discussing things with you.\r\n\r\nI fully recognize that, but look at how much you have written to address my comments. By doing that you extrapolated the whole conversation to address multiple points instead of addressing a specific one, clearing that out and moving to another. \r\nOf course in a \"real world conversation\" you would have more clues about the conversation, but unfortunately this is the constraint we are in, so we are even more responsible for the outcoming of our interactions - and of course this is both ways, but like I said before: _you have the upper-hand regarding the right context and information_.\r\n\r\nIf I can illustrate my perception of your approach again: Is like a teacher blaming a student for not knowing how to formulate a question while trying to grasp a complex concept. What you normally expect from a reasonable approach is that the person who is trying to deconstruct the wrong idea will lead the way, not the other way around. The difference is if I would explain something to you, I'd not inflict you the responsibility to provide the other part of the conversation unless I know 100% for sure you are understating how things work. Otherwise, we'll for sure, have a lot of loose ends in a conversation, because you are expecting someone to provide information they don't have as you push forward.\r\n\r\nAlthough is true (like someone already mentioned before) that is hard to understand how much someone knows about the topic through text conversations, I think this is a matter of facing the explanation in a more informative-way than a counter-argumentative one. \r\nI'm basing this rationale around the fact that you should care only to explain the motivation behind the decisions instead of counterpointing everything like I saw HaloFour doing effectively.\r\n\r\n@CyrusNajmabadi I hope I could better point out the deficiencies I felt on the way you have approached me with this subject so you can improve on that. Since the language is expanding beyond the niche it was a couple of years ago (since opensource), you guys at Microsoft will have to deal with people from many different backgrounds and understandings with a range of different experiences and views. And while I know communication is not a strong skill set for many in our field, is really important for dealing with the community (And of course these words are bidirectional).\r\n\r\nWell, since we have diverged a lot from the initial point of the discussion, I don't think it will be any more productive to keep on discussing this. Since all points were made clear for both parts regarding what had to be spoken and now we have accumulated a good history of the conversation, maybe this thread should be put to rest. Unless of course, that someone else has some relevant information to bring in to the topic."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"thiagomajesk"}}