On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 07:14:04PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 16:55:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Y'know, one feature I've always wanted is the equivalent of preprocessed C code -- with all mixins expanded, aliases substituted with their final target, templates fully expanded, all syntactic sugar lowered, with the original code lines in comments, so that you can see exactly how your code was translated, and whether it matches what you *think* it does.  This would also be invaluable for debugging, as then it will map to the assembly code much better, which will help you trace where things went wrong.
> >
> Considering how useful that sounds, I'm a little surprised this only has three votes in three years: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5051
[...]

Heh, I didn't even know it was there! Thanks for the link!


On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 07:23:45PM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote: [...]
> I didn't even know that was out there, I never go to the issue tracker, seems unwieldy and unfriendly to me..

I've to admit I don't understand that sentiment at all. It's just bugzilla, one of the many bug tracking systems out there. You run into a problem, you post a bug, describe the problem, show the code, show the results, explain what you expected to see, etc., and the devs set tags on it to indicate what kind of problem it is, give feedback, discuss the issue with you, and then post an update when the problem has been addressed. I don't see what's so unwieldy about it -- that's what you basically have to do to resolve an issue!


T

-- 
Never trust an operating system you don't have source for! -- Martin Schulze

On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 17:44:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 07:14:04PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
>> On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 16:55:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >Y'know, one feature I've always wanted is the equivalent of
>> >preprocessed C code -- with all mixins expanded, aliases substituted
>> >with their final target, templates fully expanded, all syntactic
>> >sugar lowered, with the original code lines in comments, so that you
>> >can see exactly how your code was translated, and whether it matches
>> >what you *think* it does.  This would also be invaluable for
>> >debugging, as then it will map to the assembly code much better,
>> >which will help you trace where things went wrong.
>> >
>> Considering how useful that sounds, I'm a little surprised this only
>> has three votes in three years:
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5051
> [...]
>
> Heh, I didn't even know it was there! Thanks for the link!
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 07:23:45PM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> [...]
>> I didn't even know that was out there, I never go to the issue
>> tracker, seems unwieldy and unfriendly to me..
>
> I've to admit I don't understand that sentiment at all. It's just
> bugzilla, one of the many bug tracking systems out there. You run into a
> problem, you post a bug, describe the problem, show the code, show the
> results, explain what you expected to see, etc., and the devs set tags
> on it to indicate what kind of problem it is, give feedback, discuss the
> issue with you, and then post an update when the problem has been
> addressed. I don't see what's so unwieldy about it -- that's what you
> basically have to do to resolve an issue!
>
>
> T

I used to be put off by using bugzilla as it seemed complicated. Then I used it once and found it ridiculously simple. (Although I still don't know whether P1 is more urgent than P5)

On 8/1/2013 10:58 AM, John Colvin wrote:
>> I've to admit I don't understand that sentiment at all. It's just
>> bugzilla, one of the many bug tracking systems out there. You run into a
>> problem, you post a bug, describe the problem, show the code, show the
>> results, explain what you expected to see, etc., and the devs set tags
>> on it to indicate what kind of problem it is, give feedback, discuss the
>> issue with you, and then post an update when the problem has been
>> addressed. I don't see what's so unwieldy about it -- that's what you
>> basically have to do to resolve an issue!

Bugzilla is infinitely better than what we were doing before. After using bugzilla for years now, I don't really have any complaints about it. It does the job with a minimum of fuss.


> I used to be put off by using bugzilla as it seemed complicated. Then I used it
> once and found it ridiculously simple. (Although I still don't know whether P1
> is more urgent than P5)

It also seems redundant with the critical/major/normal setting.