On 6/5/2020 5:08 PM, Manu wrote:
> but there's open issues relating to initialisation from that change,
I know about that one, but it doesn't seem a showstopper.
Initialisation and `ref` emit errors?
They're absolutely show stoppers. Values must be initialised, and code has `ref` in it all the time.
You can't write code without those things.
> there's important opportunities with `shared` in conjunction with `scope` (which
> is what I was arguing for when I was making the case for `scope` as it is today
> way back in dconf2013, if you can recall those long arguments),
Yes.
> and we had a big
> discussion about how to implement parallel-for (and associated machinery) which
> you rejected because you found it unacceptable that a library may have to insert
> fences at the appropriate places rather than the compiler doing it automatically
> (redundantly) everywhere the pattern emerged.
I don't recall that one.
There are uber-threads on it. But if you feel like you have time to think about this problem space we can open it up again.
> Timon said he thought he knew how
> to work the proposal into a form you'd find agreeable, but he hasn't replied to
> me on that recently.
> This was all discussed at length over many months. It kinda just stalled when I
> fatigued. If we're ready to pick up the ball, that would be really valuable work.
I'm not ready today, but it'd be nice if you made a text file of the status of
all your initiatives with links to the discussions, so you won't have to keep
retyping them.
Okay, I'll try and find some time to dig them up.
I have almost no time recently; work-from-home is hard and I work 12-14 hours a day to try and make up for lost productivity, and still falling behind.
... and, tragically, the reason for that is mostly because we wrote this thing in C++! I've been having a really un-fun time at work because I failed to make a pitch for D in the ~18 months window we had, and now I have to suffer that failure :(