View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
January 25, 2013
Property discussion wrap-up
As the property thread is growing big again, arguments get lost, etc I
started to document the discussion results in the wiki.

http://wiki.dlang.org/Property_Discussion_Wrap-up

Please add missing information, arguments, issues, etc.

But please keep off-topic stuff, offenses and meta discussion(release
process, ...) in the newsgroup.
January 25, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 18:57:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> As the property thread is growing big again, arguments get 
> lost, etc I
> started to document the discussion results in the wiki.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Property_Discussion_Wrap-up
>
> Please add missing information, arguments, issues, etc.
>
> But please keep off-topic stuff, offenses and meta 
> discussion(release
> process, ...) in the newsgroup.

Excellent write up and exactly what we need to make an informed 
final decision on this prolonged subject.

You may want to add these links for historical review of past 
DIP's on the subject.

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs

The most recent open DIP is here

http://wiki.dlang.org/DIPs

--rt
January 25, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
Good. That thread has already been huge by morning, it is rather 
hard to find essential info there now.
January 25, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 19:40:43 UTC, Rob T wrote:
> You may want to add these links for historical review of past 
> DIP's on the subject.
>
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs
>
> The most recent open DIP is here
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIPs
>
> --rt

I added in these links.

--rt
January 25, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
I have added a basis for quite an important thing (in my opinion) 
- unified test code base that covers as much possible (and 
impossible) usage, with all weird cases. Any new proposal can 
then be clearly defined by how it processes this code and what 
defines legals. And later this will can be trivially converted 
into unittest.
January 25, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
How about separating actual proposals to own pages? One more and 
this will become a mess.
January 25, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
I started a discussion for solutions and problems to property ref 
returns and address taking.

http://wiki.dlang.org/Talk:Property_Discussion_Wrap-up#ref_returns_and_taking_the_address

--rt
January 27, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
I have added few last "tricky" moments discussed in newsgroup to 
test code sample. Proposal authors - please do take some actions 
;) Also all proposal is split to separate page to navigate and 
edit easier.
January 27, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
On Friday, 25 January 2013 at 18:57:17 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> But please keep off-topic stuff, offenses and meta 
> discussion(release
> process, ...) in the newsgroup.

Off topic rant.

I suppressed a counterexample in the section Optional parentheses 
 - Extra note .

The note state that some stuff are valid for *function* and the 
counter example showed ambiguity using opCall. I don't know who 
did this and I don't care. I however can't stand intellectual 
dishonesty.

If your ideas are the best one, such mean move shouldn't be 
necessary to prove your point.
January 27, 2013
Re: Property discussion wrap-up
On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 16:50:47 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Off topic rant.
>
> I suppressed a counterexample in the section Optional 
> parentheses
>  - Extra note .
>
> The note state that some stuff are valid for *function* and the 
> counter example showed ambiguity using opCall. I don't know who 
> did this and I don't care. I however can't stand intellectual 
> dishonesty.

It was me, sorry if I have offended you. I tend to read 
"function" as "callable" if not mentioned otherwise and thus was 
wandering how note refers to this case. This left counter-example 
in hope that someone will comment it.

Now I see that it should be better suited to discussion, but at 
that time it was just curiosity, not desire to prove anything.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home