On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 09:29:07 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> On Friday, 18 January 2013 at 13:13:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2013-01-18 14:07, Namespace wrote:
>>> Despite the danger that this annoy you probably:
>>> What about pull 1019
>>> (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019)? I'm still
>>> quite new with Git so I do not know exactly what "1 Fail, 9 Pending"
>>> means (and why it stands there so long)
>>
>> It means that the test suite failed. You can click "Details" to get more details about what failed.
>
> Ok I observe the pull been a while and have to say that the status is always the same: 1 Fails, 9 Pending. I also see that it is updated every few hours, but the status is still the same every time.
> Is this normal? Is that automatically update accordingly?
> And how is such a nice test environment integrated into a pull request?

It will remain the same until author of the pull request will actually take time to fix test errors or whatever fails there. AFAIR Brad is the one who should get most gratitude for that nice CI suite.

> It will remain the same until author of the pull request will actually take time to fix test errors or whatever fails there. AFAIR Brad is the one who should get most gratitude for that nice CI suite.

Thanks, good to know. :)

I have now seen something I've probably overlooked before.
Here:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019#issuecomment-11836011 Kenji says, that the pull is a basic _proposal_.

What does this mean? It isn't merged until we made a final discussion and decision about that? :/

I thought that this is the solution for all C++ rvalue ref problems. Am i wrong?
I'm asking so much because I've been using it already - and I love it. Without such thing it is very annoying to work with structs.

yebblies: Can an auto-ref function pointer/deltegate implicitly convert to ref?
9rnsr: To @yebblies : I yet not implement it because this is a basic proposal.

IMHO, what he says is that behavior proposed by yebblies is some more complicated special cases he is not going to do within this pull request to keep things simple.

All pulls are proposals, by the way, it is up to one of core devs (other than pull author) to make a decision about merging.

On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 23:46:19 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> I have now seen something I've probably overlooked before.
> Here:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019#issuecomment-11836011 Kenji says, that the pull is a basic _proposal_.
>
> What does this mean? It isn't merged until we made a final discussion and decision about that? :/
>
> I thought that this is the solution for all C++ rvalue ref problems. Am i wrong?
> I'm asking so much because I've been using it already - and I love it. Without such thing it is very annoying to work with structs.

Thanks for your answer. That explains my question.
I would love to see an official statement about this pull and this feature. But neither in the related threads or here in "learn" I get such statement. That is very sad because this feature is very important and long discussed.

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 13:42:36 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> Thanks for your answer. That explains my question.
> I would love to see an official statement about this pull and this feature. But neither in the related threads or here in "learn" I get such statement. That is very sad because this feature is very important and long discussed.

And I must add: I read so often that Walter does not like to break existing code.
But with dmd 2.061 structs aren't lvalues anymore (that was a correct decision) but "auto ref" (which would solve the problem and prevent breaking existing code) wasn't merged and it seems that this feature isn't that relevant if I look on the merge history.
That a bit weird to me.

On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 13:51:27 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 13:42:36 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> Thanks for your answer. That explains my question.
>> I would love to see an official statement about this pull and this feature. But neither in the related threads or here in "learn" I get such statement. That is very sad because this feature is very important and long discussed.
>
> And I must add: I read so often that Walter does not like to break existing code.

break *cough* valid *cough* existing code.

This wasn't really a new/changed feature that broke your code. It was just something that worked that never should have worked.

I know it sucks being on your end, but that's how it is.

> break *cough* valid *cough* existing code.
>
> This wasn't really a new/changed feature that broke your code. It was just something that worked that never should have worked.

Ok, ok, it wasn't a valid solution but it was the only solution for handy programming with structs. We have still nothing which is compareable with the rvalue ref of C++ and now where this handy programming with structs is gone you have to write your code twice: for ref and for not ref. That is annoying.

> I know it sucks being on your end, but that's how it is.

Yes it sucks and I hope it will change in the near future, but I'm not sure.
Maybe I should get to like the idea that I have to write my code twice. Who knows how long it takes to merge this pull or to find another solution...