Thread overview | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
November 08, 2013 dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
I made a wiki page for that. Please discuss, improve and prioritize. http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda |
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Martin Nowak | 09-Nov-2013 00:09, Martin Nowak пишет: > I made a wiki page for that. > Please discuss, improve and prioritize. > http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda Added few goals for Phobos (hopefully describing a general consensus). 1. Fight the dependency hell & split up huge modules. As seen during private exchanges during beta period this has been under the radar for far too long. Can also be read as "shrink the size of a hello-world app". 2. Get @safe write(f)(ln) at least for basic types. There has been some great improvement on getting more @safe-ty in Phobos. Correct me I'm wrong but but we seem to be very close to achieving this symbolic goal and then it's well worth prioritizing. More to come I hope. -- Dmitry Olshansky |
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Martin Nowak | > More safety - @safe writeln ?
I think this is good, but also the kind of thing we don't want to
rush. Making things useable in safe code usually means marking
things trusted. Do this too fast, and you end up trusting code
that is actually totally unsafe :/ It's a delicate process.
|
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to monarch_dodra | 09-Nov-2013 00:50, monarch_dodra пишет: >> More safety - @safe writeln ? > > I think this is good, but also the kind of thing we don't want to > rush. Making things useable in safe code usually means marking > things trusted. Do this too fast, and you end up trusting code > that is actually totally unsafe :/ It's a delicate process. Well if it's indeed Mar 2014 I think there is no rush :) -- Dmitry Olshansky |
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dmitry Olshansky | On 11/8/2013 12:53 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> Well if it's indeed Mar 2014 I think there is no rush :)
Except that the more disruptive a change is, the earlier in the cycle it should be done, so it can bake properly.
|
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Martin Nowak | On 2013-11-08 21:09, Martin Nowak wrote: > I made a wiki page for that. > Please discuss, improve and prioritize. > http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda I think one of the most important issue for this release is the actual process. Basically what you wrote for "Other". -- /Jacob Carlborg |
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Martin Nowak | Martin Nowak:
> I made a wiki page for that.
> Please discuss, improve and prioritize.
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda
"scope"?
Bye,
bearophile
|
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Martin Nowak | On 11/8/13 12:09 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> I made a wiki page for that.
> Please discuss, improve and prioritize.
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda
I strongly urge the release timing to be a max of 2 months from now, not 5. I'd prefer getting back to monthly if we can, but that's probably overly optimistic based on the way we've been doing things.
|
November 08, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Martin Nowak | On Friday, 8 November 2013 at 20:09:57 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> I made a wiki page for that.
> Please discuss, improve and prioritize.
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda
Getting a build master :D
|
November 09, 2013 Re: dmd 2.065 - Agenda | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Brad Roberts | On 11/8/2013 3:01 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> I strongly urge the release timing to be a max of 2 months from now, not 5. I'd
> prefer getting back to monthly if we can, but that's probably overly optimistic
> based on the way we've been doing things.
It can be done if we get an automated release process (hint, hint!).
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation