March 10, 2005
It's been a very long time (9 months?) since there was a concensus that Object.print was superfluous, and Walter agreed to remove it (or rather, noted that he "just had to find the time"). I'm posting this to remind Walter that it still hasn't happened.

Please; can we finally put this to bed?

- Kris


March 10, 2005
Gets my vote

"Kris" <Kris_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0qfc8$366$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It's been a very long time (9 months?) since there was a concensus
> that
> Object.print was superfluous, and Walter agreed to remove it (or
> rather, noted
> that he "just had to find the time"). I'm posting this to remind
> Walter that it
> still hasn't happened.
>
> Please; can we finally put this to bed?
>
> - Kris
>
> 


March 10, 2005
mine also.

Matthew wrote:
> Gets my vote
> 
> "Kris" <Kris_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0qfc8$366$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>It's been a very long time (9 months?) since there was a concensus that
>>Object.print was superfluous, and Walter agreed to remove it (or rather, noted
>>that he "just had to find the time"). I'm posting this to remind Walter that it
>>still hasn't happened.
>>
>>Please; can we finally put this to bed?
>>
>>- Kris
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
March 11, 2005
Kris wrote:
> It's been a very long time (9 months?) since there was a concensus that
> Object.print was superfluous, and Walter agreed to remove it (or rather, noted
> that he "just had to find the time"). I'm posting this to remind Walter that it
> still hasn't happened. 
> 
> Please; can we finally put this to bed? 
> 
> - Kris

I still agree.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
March 13, 2005
meee tooo :)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:41:50 -0800, John Reimer <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote:
> mine also.
>
> Matthew wrote:
>> Gets my vote
>>  "Kris" <Kris_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0qfc8$366$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> It's been a very long time (9 months?) since there was a concensus that
>>> Object.print was superfluous, and Walter agreed to remove it (or rather, noted
>>> that he "just had to find the time"). I'm posting this to remind Walter that it
>>> still hasn't happened.
>>>
>>> Please; can we finally put this to bed?
>>>
>>> - Kris
>>>
>>>
>>

March 14, 2005
Regan Heath wrote:
> meee tooo :)
> 
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:41:50 -0800, John Reimer <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> mine also.
>>
>> Matthew wrote:
>>
>>> Gets my vote
>>>  "Kris" <Kris_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message  news:d0qfc8$366$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>
>>>> It's been a very long time (9 months?) since there was a concensus that
>>>> Object.print was superfluous, and Walter agreed to remove it (or  rather, noted
>>>> that he "just had to find the time"). I'm posting this to remind  Walter that it
>>>> still hasn't happened.
>>>>
>>>> Please; can we finally put this to bed?
>>>>
>>>> - Kris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> 

Maybe we're in a democracy, after all, and since I'm old enough to vote, I'll vote for this too.

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal
March 14, 2005
Carlos Santander B. wrote:

> 
> Maybe we're in a democracy, after all, and since I'm old enough to vote, I'll vote for this too.
> 
> _______________________
> Carlos Santander Bernal

I highly doubt it.  I think "voting" just makes us feel like we're involved.
March 14, 2005
John Reimer wrote:

>> Maybe we're in a democracy, after all, and since I'm old enough to vote, I'll vote for this too.
> 
> I highly doubt it.  I think "voting" just makes us feel like we're involved.

Oh, but you can be ? Why not just stop the "voting" and
provide the patch to remove Object.print from Phobos ?

The runtime library is Open Source, unlike the DMD compiler...
A working rewrite is probably more useful, than such a wish.

--anders

PS. Then again, Thomas already wrote a patch to remove usage
    of printf from the library but I haven't seen it applied ?
    (change "printf" into "writef", that was, in Phobos tests)
March 14, 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>>> Maybe we're in a democracy, after all, and since I'm old enough to vote, I'll vote for this too.
>>
>>
>> I highly doubt it.  I think "voting" just makes us feel like we're involved.
> 
> 
> Oh, but you can be ? Why not just stop the "voting" and
> provide the patch to remove Object.print from Phobos ?
> 
> The runtime library is Open Source, unlike the DMD compiler...
> A working rewrite is probably more useful, than such a wish.
> 
> --anders
> 
> PS. Then again, Thomas already wrote a patch to remove usage
>     of printf from the library but I haven't seen it applied ?
>     (change "printf" into "writef", that was, in Phobos tests)

Yes, my point is that nothing will be done unless Walter wants it done or has the time to get it done.  Submitted patches are a good idea only if they are guaranteed to make it into the update .  Otherwise they're a waste of time (I think).  At present there's no guarantee any contributions will make it in.  That's the way things work with D.  This system provides us with little motivation for participation in language and library improvement.

Naturally, the idea of voting has a nice feel to it, but in reality it doesn't really accomplish anything in this community.  This is not a democracy.  Voting is fun, though, and gives everybody that warm, fuzzy feeling about community involvement and camaraderie. Perhaps that's a good thing then? :-)

- JJR
March 14, 2005
John Reimer wrote:

> Yes, my point is that nothing will be done unless Walter wants it done or has the time to get it done.  Submitted patches are a good idea only if they are guaranteed to make it into the update .  Otherwise they're a waste of time (I think). 

However, I can still apply them to my own version of the library ?
(it runs several language patches that others find objectionable)

And since GDC *is* Open Source (even Free Software), I can even test
larger patches too - the ones out that affect the D compiler as well.

And to be honest, a fair share of bugs and fixes went straight in...
(not sure how Walter managed to sort out the relevant ones that quick)

> At present there's no guarantee any contributions will make it in.  That's the way things work with D.  This system provides us with little motivation for participation in language and library improvement.

This is why it is nice that there is more than one compiler,
and more than one implementation of the standard D library.
It needs to be done from the same specification, so that
programs stay compatible between implementations thereof.

But with just a proprietary binary, there are no promises...
(I like DMD, though. My own *main* reason for GDC is Mac OS X)

> Naturally, the idea of voting has a nice feel to it, but in reality it doesn't really accomplish anything in this community.  This is not a democracy.  Voting is fun, though, and gives everybody that warm, fuzzy feeling about community involvement and camaraderie. Perhaps that's a good thing then? :-)

I think the idea of a PEP-like system wasn't all bad...
Some organized method of collecting wishes and requests,
and have a voting attached to see how others think about it.

Meanwhile, there's just the steaming old "Bazaar" of
newsgroups and wikis and personal web pages and rants. :-)
I guess that usually forms itself, under the Cathedrals ?

--anders
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home