View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:12:34 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe
> <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
> >
> >Please remember this if someone proposes enforcing
> >@property by default.

I propose enabling @property by default.


> Clears the bar with room to spare IMO.
> 
> Not to mention it's not just a proposal, but in print in TDPL .
> 
> (dons flame war proof suit)
[...]

I don't see what's there to flamewar about. AFAIK @property enforcement
is going to happen sooner or later.


T

-- 
There is no gravity. The earth sucks.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:25:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> As I understand it, it's like override, it's being phased in, 
> and it _will_ become the normal behavior.

A planned or inevitable big mistake that will break piles
of code in a painful way is still a big mistake that will
break piles of code in a painful way.

> and @property _do_ pass the very high bar.

If the height of the bar is based on how much code it
breaks, sure.

If it based on the benefit it actually brings us, no,
absolutely not.

@property is the biggest name bikeshed of them all.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:40:37 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:12:34 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe
> > 
> > <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > >>This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.
> > >
> > >Please remember this if someone proposes enforcing
> > >@property by default.
> 
> I propose enabling @property by default.
> 
> > Clears the bar with room to spare IMO.
> > 
> > Not to mention it's not just a proposal, but in print in TDPL .
> > 
> > (dons flame war proof suit)
> 
> [...]
> 
> I don't see what's there to flamewar about. AFAIK @property enforcement
> is going to happen sooner or later.

Yes. The problem is that some people don't like @property and don't want it 
enforced, whereas others think it's a big improvement. From the sounds of it, 
Adam thinks that it's bad, whereas Steven thinks that it's good. Personally, 
I'm _definitely_ in favor of property enforcement.

Regardless, it's in TDPL, and the current plan is to enforce it. It just 
hasn't reached that point yet, since we're still in the transition stage from 
not having @property at all to having @property and having it enforced.

- Jonathan M Davis
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:40:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx>  
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

>> (dons flame war proof suit)
> [...]
>
> I don't see what's there to flamewar about.

You're new...

:)

-Steve
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:48:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> From the  sounds of it, Adam thinks that it's bad

Indeed. I have an advantage here though: it is an
objective fact that -property breaks a lot of existing
D code.

We can (and have) argue(d) all day about what, if
any, improvements strict enforcement actually brings.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:51:12PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:40:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh
> <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 
> >>(dons flame war proof suit)
> >[...]
> >
> >I don't see what's there to flamewar about.
> 
> You're new...
> 
> :)
[...]

Not nearly new enough to not be partially responsible for that huge
gigantic thread about exceptions. :-) (Which I had no trouble following,
btw, even though it's clear that a lot of people were totally lost after
the first 100 posts or so. Mutt is just *that* cool. OTOH, when the
thread nesting depth exceeded even mutt's ability to display the thread
lines (because it was overflowing my terminal width), the thread started
to fizzle out. I'm guessing that's when the rest of us mutt users bailed
out. :-P)


T

-- 
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask
about Exchange Server next. -- (Stolen from the net)
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 20:04:49 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx>  
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:51:12PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:40:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh
>> <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:48PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> >>(dons flame war proof suit)
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >I don't see what's there to flamewar about.
>>
>> You're new...
>>
>> :)
> [...]
>
> Not nearly new enough to not be partially responsible for that huge
> gigantic thread about exceptions. :-) (Which I had no trouble following,
> btw, even though it's clear that a lot of people were totally lost after
> the first 100 posts or so. Mutt is just *that* cool. OTOH, when the
> thread nesting depth exceeded even mutt's ability to display the thread
> lines (because it was overflowing my terminal width), the thread started
> to fizzle out. I'm guessing that's when the rest of us mutt users bailed
> out. :-P)
>

No, what I meant is that @property is a sore subject that invariable  
starts a time-consuming never-winning flame war any time someone mentions  
how it should or shouldn't be mandatory.

-Steve
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 23:32:58 +0100, Walter Bright  
<newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary  
> compatibility:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
>
> While I don't think we need to worry so much at the moment about  
> breaking binary compatibility with new D releases, we do have a big  
> problem with breaking source code compatibility.
>
> This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.

Definitely.
I think we should gather bugs that require breaking changes and prioritize  
them.

IMHO it's also the main reason to continue fixing imports and protection.  
By now
people mostly still appreciate those fixes but the pain they cause will  
only ever grow.

ABI
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7469
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 22:32:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> This statement is from Linus Torvalds about breaking binary 
> compatibility:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495
>
> While I don't think we need to worry so much at the moment 
> about breaking binary compatibility with new D releases, we do 
> have a big problem with breaking source code compatibility.
>
> This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking 
> changes.

I don't think it is that straightforward to conclude anything
about source compatibility in a programming language from this
argument about binary compatibility in a kernel.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
10.03.2012 3:01, Adam D. Ruppe пишет:
> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 00:48:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> From the  sounds of it, Adam thinks that it's bad
>
> Indeed. I have an advantage here though: it is an
> objective fact that -property breaks a lot of existing
> D code.
>
> We can (and have) argue(d) all day about what, if
> any, improvements strict enforcement actually brings.

Arguments are same as before, I believe:
//
alias int delegate() dg_t;

@property dg_t foo() {
    return { return 42; };
}

int main() {
    auto a = foo();
    return 0;
}
//
What should be the type of a?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home