On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 11:55:36 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> - delegates is another type system hole, if it's not going to be fixed, then it should be documented

We did fix a few things there, are the rest filed in Bugzilla?

> - members of Object

???

> - evaluate contracts at the caller side
> - streams
> - reference type AA

What do you mean by that?

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 19:22:05 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 17:40:06 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> Just wondering what the general sentiment is.
>>
>
> Multiple alias this (DIP66 / #6083.)

It's already in :), at least the DIP just got approved.
Would it really have been a dealbreaker?

On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 11:06:13 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 20:13:31 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
>> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 17:40:06 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> Unique! and RefCounted! in a usable state.
>
> +1
>
> No RefCounted classes and non-reentrant GC makes it really awkward to write libraries that handle non-memory resources in a nice way.

Can't you combine RefCounted with Scoped?

> Not being able to allocate during ~this() can be extremely annoying for me.

It's a bug (limitation), eventually it will get fixed.

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 12:48:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 12:26:04 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2014-12-21 10:46, Dicebot wrote:
> Stuff that immediately comes to my mind:
>
>  - some way to define implicit conversion from literals (done at CT)

Any ideas on that? It's an outstanding problem for the library AA work.

>  - solve the issue with impossibility of stripping head const for user-defined container types same as it is down for arrays

Yeah, that's as annoying as the ConstRange thingie.
We hit both issues when working on Array.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2631#issuecomment-61255792
Would be great to formalize the language deficiencies and prescribe some treatment.

On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 09:05:03 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 17:40:06 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> Just wondering what the general sentiment is.
>>
>> For me it's these 3 points.
>>
>> - tuple support (DIP32, maybe without pattern matching)
>> - working import, protection and visibility rules (DIP22, 313, 314)
>> - finishing non-GC memory management
>
> In my mind there are a few categories of outstanding issues.
>
> maybe shared although I'm not sure what the situation
> with that is

Noone knows, that's the problem ;).

> Second, there are cases where the language works as designed, but
> the design makes it difficult to get work done. For example,
> @nogc and exceptions, or const with templates (or const
> altogether). Order of conditional compilation needs to be defined
> (see deadalnix's DIP).
>
> And finally there's the things we would really like for D to be
> successful. Tuple support and memory management are examples of
> those. This category is essentially infinite.

It rather appears to be small.
Keeping the horizon near, helps to focus on the outstanding implementation issues.

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 17:34:29 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> - final decision on @property

That one is easy, there is already a semi-offical decision.
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP23

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 20:14:21 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> 1. A well thought out ownership system to replace GC with compiler protocols/mechanisms that makes good static analysis possible and pointers alias free.  It should be designed before "scope" is added and a GC-free runtime should be available.

If you have any concrete ideas here, now is the right time to talk with Walter.
You might want to respond to http://forum.dlang.org/post/m5p99m$luk$1@digitalmars.com or open a new thread that mentions DIP69 in it's title.

> 2. Redesign features and libraries to better support AVX auto-vectorization as well as explicit AVX programming.

I wanted to put that on my list too, as cross-compiler SIMD support.
Are there any issues with dmd's approach to SIMD intrinsics and why didn't GDC and LDC follow?

On Thursday, 25 December 2014 at 10:39:13 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> You might want to respond to http://forum.dlang.org/post/m5p99m$luk$1@digitalmars.com or open a new thread that mentions DIP69 in it's title.

I have responded in the thread.  I think ownership has to be worked out first... and that will take time to get right if you want something better than c++.

> I wanted to put that on my list too, as cross-compiler SIMD support.

Not sure if ARM Neon can support writemasks and zeromasks efficiently...

On 2014-12-25 10:11, Martin Nowak wrote:

> That's not really a language thing, but indeed important.

Add OS X to that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2014-12-25 10:29, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 11:55:36 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> - delegates is another type system hole, if it's not going to be
>> fixed, then it should be documented
>
> We did fix a few things there, are the rest filed in Bugzilla?
>
>> - members of Object
>
> ???

There has been some talk about remove all methods in Object and make them free functions. Perhaps that's what's being referred.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg