View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 23:47:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> We've debated this feature at length in various threads. It's 
> under heavy use by some people. It does not break any existing 
> code. I don't see any unresolved issue that should delay its 
> incorporation.

We already have some features interacting in a bad way. Feature 
must be field tested in various codebase before being integrated 
into the main release, so design issue can be fixed without 
breaking code (or by having people who's aware that such breakage 
will happen because they are using experimental features).
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 23:47:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> We've debated this feature at length in various threads. It's 
> under heavy use by some people. It does not break any existing 
> code. I don't see any unresolved issue that should delay its 
> incorporation.

Right now, holding it off won't break any code not relying on an 
unreleased version of the compiler. Releasing it, then having to 
make changes will break code though. There were plenty of 
discussions about UDA stuff that never really got fully resolved. 
For example, whether only specific types should be allowed to be 
used as annotations. These things should have been fully decided 
before UDA's were implemented, because otherwise we may end up 
with an inferior approach for the sake of not breaking code, or 
breaking code because a feature was not fully fleshed out before 
being released.
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 12/10/2012 8:01 PM, Kapps wrote:
> Right now, holding it off won't break any code not relying on an unreleased
> version of the compiler. Releasing it, then having to make changes will break
> code though. There were plenty of discussions about UDA stuff that never really
> got fully resolved. For example, whether only specific types should be allowed
> to be used as annotations. These things should have been fully decided before
> UDA's were implemented, because otherwise we may end up with an inferior
> approach for the sake of not breaking code, or breaking code because a feature
> was not fully fleshed out before being released.

I agree there was not a consensus reached on this issue. But I also feel all the 
arguments were fairly represented, and it was time to make a decision.
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:11:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 8:01 PM, Kapps wrote:
>> Right now, holding it off won't break any code not relying on 
>> an unreleased
>> version of the compiler. Releasing it, then having to make 
>> changes will break
>> code though. There were plenty of discussions about UDA stuff 
>> that never really
>> got fully resolved. For example, whether only specific types 
>> should be allowed
>> to be used as annotations. These things should have been fully 
>> decided before
>> UDA's were implemented, because otherwise we may end up with 
>> an inferior
>> approach for the sake of not breaking code, or breaking code 
>> because a feature
>> was not fully fleshed out before being released.
>
> I agree there was not a consensus reached on this issue. But I 
> also feel all the arguments were fairly represented, and it was 
> time to make a decision.

Note that either the decision is to reserve attribution to 
special types, and it is rather safe as it is what is done in 
other languages, or it is to allow everything to be an attribute, 
and it should be field tested before going into the main release, 
because unless I'm mistaken, no language do that ATM, so we can't 
rely on previous experience on the subject.
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 12/10/2012 8:15 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:11:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I agree there was not a consensus reached on this issue. But I also feel all
>> the arguments were fairly represented, and it was time to make a decision.
>
> Note that either the decision is to reserve attribution to special types, and it
> is rather safe as it is what is done in other languages, or it is to allow
> everything to be an attribute, and it should be field tested before going into
> the main release, because unless I'm mistaken, no language do that ATM, so we
> can't rely on previous experience on the subject.

Yes I understand that, and it is being extensively and heavily used since the 
day I posted it, and no problems have arisen.

I also understand that you and I disagree on this issue, but at some point I've 
got to make a decision.
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 12/10/2012 8:21 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Yes I understand that, and it is being extensively and heavily used since the
> day I posted it, and no problems have arisen.


I should also add that the design was based on extensive discussions about it 
here last summer.
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 11:12:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 12:56 AM, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>> Do you know that current
>> D2 compiler ICE-s with compiling DustMite? Imagine, what will 
>> feel a person when
>> bug finding tool ICE-s a compiler? He will probably consider 
>> "D is a peace of
>> unstable shit" and go away.
>
> What is the bugzilla issue number?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6395
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
11.12.2012 3:01, Walter Bright пишет:
> On 12/10/2012 8:28 AM, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>> This was the result of DustMite-ing my sources:
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6296
>>
>> Currently the bug state is a bit confusing. It is a regression (but I
>> didn't
>> mark it that way, only write in description, sorry) but is resolved as a
>> duplicate of a non-regression unfixed bug 4269. It was a small war
>> between
>> "regression" and "normal" state of 4269 and now it is marked as "normal".
>
>
> It isn't a regression, and the test cases you reported work in D1 and D2.
>

I had a code base that worked. With new compiler it stopped working. I 
DustMite-ed code base and posted this issue. It's really surprising that 
it wasn't a regression...

I know that tests from the issue pass now. I just didn't think I have to 
DustMite again to provide new ones as the issue is marked as a duplicate 
of an unfixed one.

-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 2012-12-10 22:49, Walter Bright wrote:

> If that was the only thing others have interest in, then it would be top
> priority. But there are endless "why haven't you fixed xxx yet?" issues.

I know. I just thought there would be more interest in this feature than 
it seems to be.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 11, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 2012-12-10 22:50, Walter Bright wrote:

> Why? (It's being heavily used by some people.)

Then it's their problem is they using an unreleased version of DMD.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home