On 8/24/13, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What about the probable change of virtual by default -> final by default?

Btw, can someone find the link to the forum thread where the last discussion of this took place? I remember Walter agreeing to something, but can't recall anymore.

On Saturday, 24 August 2013 at 21:53:47 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 8/24/13, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> What about the probable change of virtual by default -> final
>> by default?
>
> Btw, can someone find the link to the forum thread where the last
> discussion of this took place? I remember Walter agreeing to
> something, but can't recall anymore.

It seemed like eventually Walter supported virtual by default, but nothing came of it. For some reason I can't find the thread anymore with Google.

On Saturday, 24 August 2013 at 22:41:54 UTC, Kapps wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 August 2013 at 21:53:47 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> On 8/24/13, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> What about the probable change of virtual by default -> final
>>> by default?
>>
>> Btw, can someone find the link to the forum thread where the last
>> discussion of this took place? I remember Walter agreeing to
>> something, but can't recall anymore.
>
> It seemed like eventually Walter supported virtual by default, but nothing came of it. For some reason I can't find the thread anymore with Google.

Pretty sure Walter supported final by default, he even laid out a transition plan as I recall. Seems like Manu was involved, so asking him might bear fruit on that question.

On Saturday, 24 August 2013 at 21:53:47 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 8/24/13, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> What about the probable change of virtual by default -> final
>> by default?
>
> Btw, can someone find the link to the forum thread where the last
> discussion of this took place? I remember Walter agreeing to
> something, but can't recall anymore.

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/yzsqwejxqlnzryhrkfuq@forum.dlang.org?page=28#post-koqkhc:244nn:241:40digitalmars.com

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 17:27:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:40:48 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:33:11 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 11:30:01 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> I see Andrei running away !
>>>
>>> I see an upcoming drinking game at the next dconf. A shot of whiskey anytime anyone mentions allocators. :P
>>
>> Or auto ref. ;)
>
> Or shared.
>
> Or const.
>
> Or scope.
>
> Or Object methods.
>
> There's quite a few unresolved issues!

How about adding those to the TODO list?
e.g. http://dlang.org/todo.html
Or make a wiki page?

On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 17:27:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
> Or shared

… starting with the fact that we don't have a well-defined memory model at all – on a fundamental level, multithreaded programming in D is guesswork (resp. looking at the compiler implementation) right now!

> […] There's quite a few unresolved issues!

Also add aliasing semantics to the list: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10750

David

On 8/25/13, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/yzsqwejxqlnzryhrkfuq@forum.dlang.org?page=28#post-koqkhc:244nn:241:40digitalmars.com

Thanks!

On Sunday, 25 August 2013 at 22:46:16 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 17:27:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
>> Or shared
>
> … starting with the fact that we don't have a well-defined memory model at all – on a fundamental level, multithreaded programming in D is guesswork (resp. looking at the compiler implementation) right now!
>
>> […] There's quite a few unresolved issues!
>
> Also add aliasing semantics to the list: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10750
>
> David

It is a wonder it works at all! :D

26-Aug-2013 03:03, Dicebot пишет:
> On Sunday, 25 August 2013 at 22:46:16 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 August 2013 at 17:27:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
>>> Or shared
>>
>> … starting with the fact that we don't have a well-defined memory
>> model at all – on a fundamental level, multithreaded programming in D
>> is guesswork (resp. looking at the compiler implementation) right now!
>>
>>> […] There's quite a few unresolved issues!
>>
>> Also add aliasing semantics to the list:
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10750
>>
>> David
>
> It is a wonder it works at all! :D

Well C++ got away with it for 10+ years not even having a notion of a thread. And since globals are defined as thread-local, there is some notion of memory model isn't it? ;)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On Monday, 26 August 2013 at 07:55:56 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> It is a wonder it works at all! :D
>
> Well C++ got away with it for 10+ years not even having a notion of a thread. And since globals are defined as thread-local, there is some notion of memory model isn't it? ;)

What I was (half-)joking about here is that D has _lot_ of crucial design problems, listing them all at once can inspire truly apocalyptic feelings. And still in practice it works and works pretty damn good. Can a mortal mind even imagine how awesome can it be if all those issues are addressed and fixed? :)