Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.

http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25


Andrei

On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
>
>
> Andrei

I'm working on an article/DIP which actually goes further than the new DIP25, but is nonetheless completely compatible with it. I'll have the article in a day or two.

On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
>
>
> Andrei

I added support to my tools a few days ago:

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/libdparse/commit/fc9dacfa41c0bae258814ad64e58ffaae6b961cc

Now I need to make a pull request that updates the official grammar...

On 1/16/2015 1:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in
> implementation for quicker pipelining.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25


https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4298

On 1/16/15 4:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
> opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25

I was about to complain because I remember not liking that DIP, but I see you removed inout as the notation, opting for return instead. Looks good now!

One thing I would note: in "Types of Result vs. Parameters", I think it should stay this way. Simple explanation is: IFTI/auto returns.

We have a very similar situation with inout. Originally, I insisted that inout only was valid on a parameter if it was also designated on the return. This kind of makes sense. But it caused issues with templates, because inout could be deduced by IFTI, and then it wasn't on the return. We have now fixed the compiler so inout reduces to const if not specified on the return.

I can potentially see a situation like this:

auto fun(T)(return ref T x)

Where the auto deduces to something that couldn't possibly match T or any piece of it. Causing this function to error just because of a type mismatch is the wrong move.

-Steve

On 1/16/15 2:00 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
> On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
>> opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
>>
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I added support to my tools a few days ago:
>
> https://github.com/Hackerpilot/libdparse/commit/fc9dacfa41c0bae258814ad64e58ffaae6b961cc
>
>
> Now I need to make a pull request that updates the official grammar...

Fantastic. Walter has a pull for the parser already. Please don't forget the feature is opt-in. -- Andrei

On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
>
>
> Andrei

Some questions

What is purpose of DIPs?

Who can approve them?

How can something been preliminarily approved without any discussion?

Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
but from history I see lots of changing after that date?

P.S. I like this DIP, but I do not like way how things are done :(

On 1/16/15 5:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
>> opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
>>
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Some questions
>
> What is purpose of DIPs?

To have a more formal place to put a proposal for a major D language improvement.

> Who can approve them?

Ultimately, Walter.

> How can something been preliminarily approved without any discussion?

Much discussion has happened on this. e.g.: http://forum.dlang.org/post/m7ns90$16t1$1@digitalmars.com http://forum.dlang.org/post/ket199$2c27$1@digitalmars.com

> Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
> but from history I see lots of changing after that date?

That date is manually entered. I'll fix it.

-Steve

On 1/16/15 2:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the
>> opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
>>
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Some questions
>
> What is purpose of DIPs?

To improve D :o). DIP = D Improvement Proposal.

> Who can approve them?

Walter and I.

> How can something been preliminarily approved without any discussion?

There's been quite a bit of it, and we listened to it - we changed "inout" to "return".

This has been public for a good time and is important AND urgent while much debate has been carried on inconsequential topics. Time to move forward.

> Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
> but from history I see lots of changing after that date?

I wish that were automated.

> P.S. I like this DIP, but I do not like way how things are done :(

Please participate to improving how things are done.


Andrei

Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d píše v Pá 16. 01. 2015 v 17:59 -0500:
> On 1/16/15 5:52 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 21:41:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> Please help us work the kinks out! Walter will be proceeding with the opt-in implementation for quicker pipelining.
> >>
> >> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrei
> >
> > Some questions
> >
> > What is purpose of DIPs?
> 
> To have a more formal place to put a proposal for a major D language improvement.
> 
> > Who can approve them?
> 
> Ultimately, Walter.
> 
> > How can something been preliminarily approved without any discussion?
> 
> Much discussion has happened on this. e.g.: http://forum.dlang.org/post/m7ns90$16t1$1@digitalmars.com http://forum.dlang.org/post/ket199$2c27$1@digitalmars.com
> 

Oh I see, I miss it
> > Why DIP says: Last Modified: 2015-01-11
> > but from history I see lots of changing after that date?
> 
> That date is manually entered. I'll fix it.
> 
> -Steve
Thanks