On Sunday, 12 January 2014 at 18:09:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Put $150 on this. https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1325974-type-system-breaking-caused-by-implicit-conversion-for-the-value-returned-from-pure-function

I posted a fix for this issue (i.e. the one on which the bounty was set).

Now tackling Manu's example, which turns out to exhibit a slightly different bug.

David

On 01/12/2014 07:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/12/14 8:46 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"  wrote in message
>> news:laugbo$2jcq$3@digitalmars.com...
>>> Yep. Has this been placed in bugzilla? It's rather hi-pri.
>>
>> If this isn't https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11503 - it
>> most likely has the same cause.
>
> Put $150 on this.
> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1325974-type-system-breaking-caused-by-implicit-conversion-for-the-value-returned-from-pure-function
>
>
> Andrei

This issue was trivial, and yet was assigned a higher bounty than e.g. fixing CTFE performance, which requires a large investment as far as I understand. This raises the question of how bountied issues are selected. There are other serious problems with the type system implementation, eg:

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9149
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10376
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9148

On a related note, I think it makes no sense to put a bounty on the "Object not const-correct" issue. What would someone be required to do in order to get the bounty for that issue?

On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 18:29:36 UTC, Manu wrote:
>...

I'm  just a bit confused, but recently I've seen many topics from
Manu and problems which he's facing with D.

So my question is: You don't had any problems when coding
"Remedy's" 3D engine integration with D back then?
(http://dconf.org/2013/talks/evans_1.html) or am I missing
something?

On 01/12/2014 10:06 PM, Johnny Walking wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 18:29:36 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> ...
>
> I'm  just a bit confused, but recently I've seen many topics from
> Manu and problems which he's facing with D.
>
> So my question is: You don't had any problems when coding
> "Remedy's" 3D engine integration with D back then?
> (http://dconf.org/2013/talks/evans_1.html) or am I missing
> something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon

On 1/12/14 12:35 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 01/12/2014 07:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/12/14 8:46 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"  wrote in message
>>> news:laugbo$2jcq$3@digitalmars.com...
>>>> Yep. Has this been placed in bugzilla? It's rather hi-pri.
>>>
>>> If this isn't https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11503 - it
>>> most likely has the same cause.
>>
>> Put $150 on this.
>> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1325974-type-system-breaking-caused-by-implicit-conversion-for-the-value-returned-from-pure-function
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> This issue was trivial, and yet was assigned a higher bounty than e.g.
> fixing CTFE performance, which requires a large investment as far as I
> understand. This raises the question of how bountied issues are
> selected.

I select them with a focus on impact. Clearly the process could be improved.

 There are other serious problems with the type system
> implementation, eg:
>
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9149
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10376
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9148

Thanks, will take those under advisement. FWIW there's been a thread taking suggestions.

> On a related note, I think it makes no sense to put a bounty on the
> "Object not const-correct" issue. What would someone be required to do
> in order to get the bounty for that issue?

Make sure we have a complete solution for invoking Object's methods against const and immutable Objects?


Andrei

On 01/12/2014 11:51 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Put $150 on this.
>>> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1325974-type-system-breaking-caused-by-implicit-conversion-for-the-value-returned-from-pure-function
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> This issue was trivial, and yet was assigned a higher bounty than e.g.
>> fixing CTFE performance, which requires a large investment as far as I
>> understand. This raises the question of how bountied issues are
>> selected.
>
> I select them with a focus on impact. Clearly the process could be
> improved.
> ...

I see. FWIW it _did_ get an issue fixed.

>   There are other serious problems with the type system
>> implementation, eg:
>>
>> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9149
>> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10376
>> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9148
>
> Thanks, will take those under advisement.  FWIW there's been a thread
> taking suggestions.
> ...

(I know; at that time I didn't think those issues would qualify. :o))

>> On a related note, I think it makes no sense to put a bounty on the
>> "Object not const-correct" issue. What would someone be required to do
>> in order to get the bounty for that issue?
>
> Make sure we have a complete solution for invoking Object's methods
> against const and immutable Objects?
>
>
> Andrei
>

Wasn't there a consensus that Object's methods are going away?

On 13 January 2014 07:06, Johnny Walking <jw@redlabel.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 18:29:36 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>
> I'm  just a bit confused, but recently I've seen many topics from Manu and problems which he's facing with D.
>
> So my question is: You don't had any problems when coding "Remedy's" 3D engine integration with D back then? (http://dconf.org/2013/talks/evans_1.html) or am I missing something?
>

I was doing very different work at that point, stressing totally different
parts of the language - mostly meta stuff. And believe me, I had bugs, lots
of them.
I also had a direct hotline to Walter... I don't feel I have the authority
to pester him directly or as frequently now ;)

What doesn't come across in my posts is that the D experience today is _so
much_ better than it was while I was doing the Remedy work. It's come a
long way in terms of quality in the last 1-2 years, and generally gets
better every day.
I often remark to myself how relatively rare to is to run into compiler
bugs today.

But you know what seems to reliably make it better? Complaining about it.
Well, that... and the work of all the awesome contributors! :)
Silently adding workarounds to your code, and dropping a bug somewhere has
significantly lesser effect. There's no other functional sense of priority
I'm aware of, voting on issues has apparently little meaning. Issues that
seem to get the most buzz in the forum seem to get fixed the fastest. I'm
good as making noise ;)

On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 01:07:56 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 13 January 2014 07:06, Johnny Walking <jw@redlabel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 18:29:36 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> I'm  just a bit confused, but recently I've seen many topics from
>> Manu and problems which he's facing with D.
>>
>> So my question is: You don't had any problems when coding
>> "Remedy's" 3D engine integration with D back then?
>> (http://dconf.org/2013/talks/evans_1.html) or am I missing
>> something?
>>
>
> I was doing very different work at that point, stressing totally different
> parts of the language - mostly meta stuff. And believe me, I had bugs, lots
> of them.
> I also had a direct hotline to Walter... I don't feel I have the authority
> to pester him directly or as frequently now ;)
>
> What doesn't come across in my posts is that the D experience today is _so
> much_ better than it was while I was doing the Remedy work. It's come a
> long way in terms of quality in the last 1-2 years, and generally gets
> better every day.
> I often remark to myself how relatively rare to is to run into compiler
> bugs today.
>
> But you know what seems to reliably make it better? Complaining about it.
> Well, that... and the work of all the awesome contributors! :)
> Silently adding workarounds to your code, and dropping a bug somewhere has
> significantly lesser effect. There's no other functional sense of priority
> I'm aware of, voting on issues has apparently little meaning. Issues that
> seem to get the most buzz in the forum seem to get fixed the fastest. I'm
> good as making noise ;)

I know the feeling with Dvorm and Cmsed's router. The amount of bugs I hit are horrendous. I'm not complaining about it or reporting them mainly because a) not on a head build and b) I'm literally pushing the compiler to its limits in some areas.

Maybe once next version and it has all been announced I'll start on getting the common issues that a user might experience reported. But I suspect with these ones they aren't gonna be a simple fix.

Although I am glad I am doing it now rather than a year ago. Mainly because I've learnt so much since then from the D community. I have to say more than any other in my past.

On Sunday, 12 January 2014 at 19:36:10 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 January 2014 at 18:09:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Put $150 on this. https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1325974-type-system-breaking-caused-by-implicit-conversion-for-the-value-returned-from-pure-function
>
> I posted a fix for this issue (i.e. the one on which the bounty was set).
>
> Now tackling Manu's example, which turns out to exhibit a slightly different bug.

Filed as https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11909, fix at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3085.

David

On 1/12/14 5:46 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> I know the feeling with Dvorm and Cmsed's router. The amount of bugs I hit are horrendous. I'm not
> complaining about it or reporting them mainly because a) not on a head build and b) I'm literally
> pushing the compiler to its limits in some areas.

Please, report all of the bugs.  An unreported bug is rather less likely to be fixed.  We'd much rather have duplicate reports than no reports.  Dups are fairly easy to deal with.