So it would be great to get the super annoying https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259 to a conclusion, and it seems the similarly annoying https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14835 is in the way.

If anyone would like to look into the latter that would be great. Good regression testing (e.g. on dub projects) would be necessary.


Andrei

On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 16:27:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> So it would be great to get the super annoying https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259 to a conclusion, and it seems the similarly annoying https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14835 is in the way.
>
> If anyone would like to look into the latter that would be great. Good regression testing (e.g. on dub projects) would be necessary.
>
>
> Andrei

I can take a look at 259.
14835 is nothing trivial though.

On 10/12/2016 12:31 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
> I can take a look at 259.
> 14835 is nothing trivial though.

My understanding is Thomas has an attack on 259 once a solution to 14835 is up. -- Andrei

On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 16:36:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 12:31 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
>> I can take a look at 259.
>> 14835 is nothing trivial though.
>
> My understanding is Thomas has an attack on 259 once a solution to 14835 is up. -- Andrei

Yes. The path to fix 259 is clear, and Lionello Lunesu and myself have already done most of the work.

14835 is a blocker due to the nature of the solution that Walter and Andrei approved (which I agree is the right one); an independent implementation would run in to the same problem.

On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 22:16:38 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 16:36:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 12:31 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>> I can take a look at 259.
>>> 14835 is nothing trivial though.
>>
>> My understanding is Thomas has an attack on 259 once a solution to 14835 is up. -- Andrei
>
> Yes. The path to fix 259 is clear, and Lionello Lunesu and myself have already done most of the work.
>
> 14835 is a blocker due to the nature of the solution that Walter and Andrei approved (which I agree is the right one); an independent implementation would run in to the same problem.

Great news!

On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 22:38:33 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 22:16:38 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>> Yes. The path to fix 259 is clear, and Lionello Lunesu and myself have already done most of the work.
>>
>> 14835 is a blocker due to the nature of the solution that Walter and Andrei approved (which I agree is the right one); an independent implementation would run in to the same problem.
>
> Great news!

Only if that blocker is dealt with - otherwise it's just wasted effort...