On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 01:25:58 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
>
> If I translated my "weak" concept to the official style guide and added giant wall of text "documenting" it(being verbose and unclear via overt unnecessary formality to match phoboes style) would odds of success would you expect?

If you convert them into mergeable PR's, and if you are willing address change requests, and if you are willing to add the necessary documentation, then I don't see why merging them would be a problem.

And dropping the passive aggressive snark would definitely help your odds.

On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 02:27:23 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 01:25:58 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
>>
>> If I translated my "weak" concept to the official style guide and added giant wall of text "documenting" it(being verbose and unclear via overt unnecessary formality to match phoboes style) would odds of success would you expect?
>
> If you convert them into mergeable PR's, and if you are willing address change requests, and if you are willing to add the necessary documentation, then I don't see why merging them would be a problem.
>

Also not a number and thats a question for the perma-optimists; and *for you* I really really intent to drive the point home; waiting a decade on a theatrical feature isn't eager. I was here for a few of them and made my opinion known at the time.

>>> some of us have itchy merge buttons
> And dropping the passive aggressive snark would definitely help your odds.

I was unaware I was passive or snarky. Im livid, perhaps Im not communicating that well enough. I offered to help again and again and again; with wise restraint to want clear communication before starting on anything. Call me cynical, but I listened to others stories of being burned by the politics and didnt want to dive in head first.

You have no success integrating new people, and low success keeping people around. That's a political problem. Not a money problem; nor something you can dodge with someone who wants to pick a fight.

here let me write that in Phoboes-style for ya
```d
/**
Weakens an alias, so it must be compatible with T or it returns a valid T instead,(T.init), this can be used to make over loadable function arguments with default values. WeakAlias is for compiletime, WeakValue for runtime.
**/

auto ref WeakAlias(T,alias A)(){
	static if(is(T:typeof(A))){
		return A;
	} else {
		return T.init;
}}
auto ref WeakValue(T,S)(auto ref S a){
	static if(is(T:S)){
		return a;
	} else {
		return T.init;
}}

unittest{
	void foo(T)(T i=WeakValue!T(1)){}
	struct myint{int i;}
	foo(myint(2));
	//void bar(T)(T i=1){}
	//bar(myint(2));// fails, "cannot implicitly convert"
}
```

On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 03:24:19 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
> here let me write that in Phoboes-style for ya

Why don’t you send a PR to the Phobos repo? :)
Most development is happening over there (and on Bugzilla), not this newsgroup.

On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 23:40:36 UTC, Elias (0xEAB) wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 03:24:19 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
>> here let me write that in Phoboes-style for ya
>
> Why don’t you send a PR to the Phobos repo? :)
> Most development is happening over there (and on Bugzilla), not this newsgroup.

a) I care little for linus`s tool; I write very different code, and consider that whole back end to be an implementation detail for a free publishing service with bad ux
b) https://xkcd.com/1205/ *but worse* given probabilistic success, learning the core devs workflow, finding the right file, learning style of the commits message, and hell mimicking their god awful hyper formal dialict is painful
c) no previous reciprocation

On Monday, 28 October 2024 at 11:11:35 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 23:40:36 UTC, Elias (0xEAB) wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 October 2024 at 03:24:19 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
>>> here let me write that in Phoboes-style for ya
>>
>> Why don’t you send a PR to the Phobos repo? :)
>> Most development is happening over there (and on Bugzilla), not this newsgroup.
>
> a) I care little for linus`s tool; I write very different code, and consider that whole back end to be an implementation detail for a free publishing service with bad ux
> b) https://xkcd.com/1205/ *but worse* given probabilistic success, learning the core devs workflow, finding the right file, learning style of the commits message, and hell mimicking their god awful hyper formal dialict is painful
> c) no previous reciprocation

Well, then I don't know how to help you. Everybody else has to follow the procedures and use the tools. And I certainly can't ask somebody else to take your code and do the rest of the work for you. If you won't do that then I'm not sure what else I can say.

On Wednesday, 30 October 2024 at 02:29:30 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> 
> Well, then I don't know how to help you.

I believe data structures the be important for a generic programming, and that std's are the natural fit for where they belong. I could easily fill a 3 page rant on the topic; but this shouldn't be that controversial.

I believe allocators are stupid, period. And its been too long to pretend its going to happen.

*You* could start merging data structures *from anyone*, into phoboes v3. If you wont accept this work from *anyone* due to the allocator drama, why claim to be eager about merging code?

On Wednesday, 30 October 2024 at 10:07:19 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
> I could easily fill a 3 page rant on the topic; but this shouldn't be that controversial.

How about filling 3 pages of the PR queue with submissions for your ideas instead? :P


> I believe data structures the be important for a generic programming, and that std's are the natural fit for where they belong.

How would you like to get them into the standard library if not by sending them through the regular PR process? (Even for someone else to pick them up, they’d otherwise have to stumble over your links here in the newsgroup instead of just having a look at the open PRs.)

On Wednesday, 30 October 2024 at 14:10:42 UTC, Elias (0xEAB) wrote:
> 
> How would you like to get them into the standard library if not by sending them through the regular PR process?

I think your misunderstanding all three of my points

1) I dont use git expect as a requirement, such as github; yet I use github still if lazily

2) there could be a higher success rate for long term integration of first time contributors

3) there could be a reciprocation feedback loop; i.e. if my bugs got fixed I would spend more time on bug reports instead of workarounds and defensive syntax testing

These are conditional, not absolutes.

> (Even for someone else to pick them up, they’d otherwise have to stumble over your links here in the newsgroup instead of just having a look at the open PRs.)

Am I suppose to care if they are seen then discarded?

I believe 4 things would drastically improve the std which are trivial to write

1) merging data structures litterally ever
2) simplifying the clunky meta-programming templates
3) renaming passes/lazy clarifying of some horribly formal docs
4) inclusion of "trivial" one liner algorithms that are composites of other range functions

These suggestions are met with:

1) allocator are super important/ship on dub
2) templates are not important for v3
~~3) (havnt pushed on this one much, but renaming one of the `std.write`s would be a breaking change)~~
4) "to travail"