On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For more details, please visit [1] and if you have the time, please offer some feedback,
>>
>> Thank you,
>> RazvanN
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129/
>
> I've made all the changes in the code that the DIP includes[1] and the tests seem to be all green. I still need to add more tests; if you have any tests that you want to make sure the implementation takes into account please post them.
>
> Cheers,
> RazvanN
>
> [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688

Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx switch.

On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:26:17 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For more details, please visit [1] and if you have the time, please offer some feedback,
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> RazvanN
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129/
>>
>> I've made all the changes in the code that the DIP includes[1] and the tests seem to be all green. I still need to add more tests; if you have any tests that you want to make sure the implementation takes into account please post them.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> RazvanN
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688
>
> Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx switch.

After discussing with Walter and Andrei we came to the conclusion that a flag is not necessary in this case. Immediately after the DIP is accepted, the postblit will be deprecated.

On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:27:47 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
>> Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx switch.
>
> After discussing with Walter and Andrei we came to the conclusion that a flag is not necessary in this case.

Please elaborate on the reasoning.

> Immediately after the DIP is accepted, the postblit will be deprecated.

Its not about the deprecation process, its about the transitional process, i.e what to do when there is both a postblit and a copy constructor are defined. Whatever the default is, if there is no way to control it, it is impossible to transition smoothly.

On Monday, October 8, 2018 4:27:47 AM MDT RazvanN via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:26:17 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > On Monday, 8 October 2018 at 10:14:51 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 09:26:34 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I just pushed another version of the DIP in which the major modifications among otthers are removing implicit and use copy constructor calls in all situations where a copy is made. For more details, please visit [1] and if you have the time, please offer some feedback,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> RazvanN
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/129/
> >>
> >> I've made all the changes in the code that the DIP includes[1] and the tests seem to be all green. I still need to add more tests; if you have any tests that you want to make sure the implementation takes into account please post them.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> RazvanN
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8688
> >
> > Both the DIP and the implementation still lack a -dip10xx switch.
>
> After discussing with Walter and Andrei we came to the conclusion that a flag is not necessary in this case. Immediately after the DIP is accepted, the postblit will be deprecated.

Even without a transitional switch, I would ask that we _please_ delay actually deprecating postblit constructors until copy constructors have been in at least one release. We do this when replacing old symbols in Phobos with new ones, because if we don't, it's not possible to have your code compile with the current release and master at the same time without getting deprecation messages (while code _could_ use static if with __VERSION__ to support multiple releases, that doesn't work with master, since unfortunately, __VERSION__ on master always matches the most recent release rather than the next one). The DIP that covers deprecations talks about delaying deprecations when adding new symbols that for exactly that reason, and replacing postblit constructors with copy constructors poses exactly the same problem. It should always be possible to make code compile with both master and the latest release without deprecation messages, since otherwise, even programmers who are completely on top of things could end up having to deal with a flood of deprecation messages that they can't fix.

- Jonathan M Davis