April 04
On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 at 09:52:19 UTC, Dennis wrote:

> Duration: 4 hours
> "expected to last an-hour-and-a-half, but it could go longer"

That duration of 4 hours is an overlooked error. When editing the Ddoc for that page, I started with one of the hackathon files and simply missed it.
April 04
On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 at 00:10:53 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:

> If you feel that something is missing or I've messed something up please do open a PR.

I would like to request you please defer judgment on @property unless someone who's done significant work with it is present to advocate on its behalf.  I'm afraid I won't be there, and I fear a rash judgment.

I am well aware that Walter and Andrei are disappointed in @property, but I have not heard a single objective argument explaining why.  It is mostly "It sucks" and "I don't like it" and arguments that optional parens fulfills the need (It doesn't and I can make that case).

@property is not fundamentally flawed (at least I haven't heard a good argument proving so).  Its implementation is slightly broken and very incomplete.  I believe that with a few fixes, a few years of adjustment, and the necessary work to complete the implementation, @property could become an asset to the language.

What I'm asking for is that unless the right person is there to articulate the issue (there are a few), please allow the DIP process to work.  We don't need *a* decision, we need the right decision and we have a process for reaching that decision.  This actually goes for any issue on the AGM agenda.  I think it's OK to discuss it, but please defer judgment, and let the DIP process work, unless there is someone there that can make the full case for it.

@property needs 3 separate DIPs to be a success.  I had originally abandoned the Binary Assignment Operators DIP, but Andrei's recent "We've been worrying too much about changing things" and "We need one standard library that is entirely pay-as-you-go" posts has re-kindled my hope that maybe, just *maybe*, there still might be some hope for D to be more than an obscure language with a cult following.

It won't be easy to rescue @property, but I believe it can be done, and will ultimately earn the support of the community.  I need help.  If you would like to help, please get in touch with me (JinShil on GitHub and Slack).  We need someone with good writing skills and the ability to be thorough to write the DIPs.  Either that or it's on me, and that will take a long while.

Mike

April 05
On Thursday, 4 April 2019 at 23:55:16 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:

> @property is not fundamentally flawed (at least I haven't heard a good argument proving so).

BTW, I'm a big advocate of fail early.  If you can make the case against @property I'd love to hear it so I don't waste my time.

Mike
April 05
On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 at 00:10:53 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> The Dconf AGM draft agenda  is up at https://github.com/thewilsonator/Dlang-AGM
>
> If you feel that something is missing or I've messed something up please do open a PR.

It would be interesting to understand the plan around having a better CTFE performance.

The decision is to wait for Stefan's work to land into master?

If yes, Walter, or someone else, has given a fast look to the current state-of-work?
If no, there's a plan B?

- P


Next ›   Last »
1 2