Trying to do alias template deduction myself. (page 2)

April 06, 2023

Re: Trying to do alias template deduction myself.

Posted by Elfstone
in reply to Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole

Permalink

Elfstone

Posted in reply to Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole

Permalink

On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 04:15:53 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:

Please open a PR on to dmd's upstream repo so the testsuite can run and you can start getting feedback from compiler devs.

This would be nice to be resolved.

I think I will eventually.

The matching part is still a problem - it's a copy of L2:.

Help is needed. I'm not confident enough to make changes to L2: so it can be shared. Do you think it's a better idea to get more help by opening a PR? It'd be great if a seasoned D dev would take it over and finish it.

Update:

I just solved static assert(isInstanceOf!(Regex, Regex!char)), but also noticed there could be much more complicated alias declarations. I wouldn't want to handle them all. For example:

alias SomeAlias(T, U) = somemodule.SomeTemp!T.SomeInnerTemp!U;
void foo(X, Y)(SomeAlias!(T, U) v) {} // IFTI will fail
void foo(X, Y)(SomeTemp!T.SomeInnerTemp!U v) {} // also fails

On 06/04/2023 5:44 PM, Elfstone wrote: > Help is needed. I'm not confident enough to make changes to `L2:` so it can be shared. Do you think it's a better idea to get more help by opening a PR? It'd be great if a seasoned D dev would take it over and finish it. Yeah, it can always be done in multiple PR's; partial implementations are not a bad thing!

On 4/6/23 1:46 AM, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote: > On 06/04/2023 5:44 PM, Elfstone wrote: >> Help is needed. I'm not confident enough to make changes to `L2:` so it can be shared. Do you think it's a better idea to get more help by opening a PR? It'd be great if a seasoned D dev would take it over and finish it. > > Yeah, it can always be done in multiple PR's; partial implementations are not a bad thing! Yeah, please push what you can. It's OK if IFTI isn't perfect. The best way to get it looked at and have the experts take over is to make a PR! -Steve

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 14:58:59 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On 4/6/23 1:46 AM, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote: >> On 06/04/2023 5:44 PM, Elfstone wrote: >>> Help is needed. I'm not confident enough to make changes to `L2:` so it can be shared. Do you think it's a better idea to get more help by opening a PR? It'd be great if a seasoned D dev would take it over and finish it. >> >> Yeah, it can always be done in multiple PR's; partial implementations are not a bad thing! > > Yeah, please push what you can. It's OK if IFTI isn't perfect. > > The best way to get it looked at and have the experts take over is to make a PR! > > -Steve I need help with this problem, friends! PR requires spec change: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/discussions/15086

On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 04:55:16 UTC, Elfstone wrote: > I need help with this problem, friends! > > PR requires spec change: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/discussions/15086 I tried the test code in 2 different versions (one of them old) and didn't run into any issues. It compiled for me with no errors. SDB@79

On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 05:39:52 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote: > On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 04:55:16 UTC, Elfstone wrote: >> I need help with this problem, friends! >> >> PR requires spec change: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/discussions/15086 > > I tried the test code in 2 different versions (one of them old) and didn't run into any issues. It compiled for me with no errors. > > SDB@79 This shouldn't happen. What test code did you run? D master should be able to compile this code, as it's part of D's autotest. ```D struct S(T) {} alias A(T) = S!T; static assert(is(A!int : S!T, T)); static assert(!is(A!int : A!T, T)); ``` But with my PR this will not compile, because my PR is exactly about resolving `is(A!int : A!T, T)` to be true, therefore it can't pass the autotest. I'm stuck in a circle: I need to get my PR to be reviewed, before I can convince others to change the spec. But the spec is preventing my PR from passing the autotest.

On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 12:30:49 UTC, jmh530 wrote: > On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 05:59:30 UTC, Elfstone wrote: >> [snip] > > Has there been any update on this? The PR had a few failed tests for some reason. After a recent rebase, it passed all tests but two awaiting for approval. No more response from the maintainers than what you can see in the conversation there: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15085 :(

On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 02:53:08 UTC, Elfstone wrote: > On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 12:30:49 UTC, jmh530 wrote: >> On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 05:59:30 UTC, Elfstone wrote: >>> [snip] >> >> Has there been any update on this? > > The PR had a few failed tests for some reason. After a recent rebase, it passed all tests but two awaiting for approval. > > No more response from the maintainers than what you can see in the conversation there: > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15085 :( I generally follow a schedule of two weeks between pings on my PRs. IMO, don't be afraid of being more annoying than you feel is permissible. This sort of abandonment for huge heaps of volunteer work is unacceptable and frankly insulting.

Forums