Jump to page: 1 27  
Page
Thread overview
July 15
This is the feedback thread for the first round of Community Review for DIP 1021, "Argument Ownership and Function Calls":

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/793f83911fdc8c88c6ef34e6a36b5e11e3e574e5/DIPs/DIP1021.md

All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should occur in this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on July 30, or when I make a post declaring it complete.

At the end of Round 2, if further review is deemed necessary, the DIP will be scheduled for another round of Community Review. Otherwise, it will be queued for the Final Review and Formal Assessment.

For some additional context on this DIP, please see Walter's latest post on the D Blog titled "Ownership and Borrowing in D":

https://dlang.org/blog/2019/07/15/ownership-and-borrowing-in-d/

But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use my post in the Announce forum for that:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/hetwxvibgqcmoltvnoda@forum.dlang.org

Anyone intending to post feedback in this thread is expected to be familiar with the reviewer guidelines:

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md

I will be moving (copying, deleting, and pasting in a new thread) posts that do not adhere to the reviewer guidelines. So please keep all comments in this thread focused on DIP 1021.

Thanks in advance to all who participate.
July 15
On Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:23:32 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> This is the feedback thread for the first round of Community Review for DIP 1021, "Argument Ownership and Function Calls":
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/793f83911fdc8c88c6ef34e6a36b5e11e3e574e5/DIPs/DIP1021.md

Do these new checks also handle the case where one of the references is passed implicitly to a delegate or nested function via their context? In other words, if we re-write the example from the DIP to use a nested function, like so:

struct S {
    byte* ptr;
    ref byte get() { return *ptr; }
}

void test() {
    S s;
    s.ptr = cast(byte*) malloc(1);

    void foo(ref byte b) {
        free(s.ptr);
        b = 4;
    }

    foo(s.ptr);
}

Will the call to `foo` here be correctly flagged as taking multiple mutable references to `s`?
July 15
But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use the post in the Announce forum for that:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/hetwxvibgqcmoltvnoda@forum.dlang.org
July 15
I think this DIP should at least consider expanding its scope to use the reaching definition analysis.

It seems slightly pointless if, even if it's already opt in, that we can bypass it so easily e.g. by assigning a temporary.

Or is it really *that* complicated to allow the compiler to analyse this?
July 15
But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use the post in the Announce forum for that:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/hetwxvibgqcmoltvnoda@forum.dlang.org
July 15
On 7/15/2019 6:55 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use the post in the Announce forum for that:
> 
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/hetwxvibgqcmoltvnoda@forum.dlang.org

Wait, what?  Why are we encouraging / having _discussions_ on the _announce_ list?  I know we've never prevented them in the past, but this is probably the first time I've seen active encouragement.  While I'm not an particularly active member of the community these days, I strongly disagree with this policy.
July 16
On Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:23:32 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> ...
> But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use my post in the Announce forum for that:
> .
> .
> .
> I will be moving (copying, deleting, and pasting in a new thread) posts that do not adhere to the reviewer guidelines. So please keep all comments in this thread focused on DIP 1021.

I don't get it.
July 16
On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 01:55:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use the post in the Announce forum for that:
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/hetwxvibgqcmoltvnoda@forum.dlang.org

I believe Mike meant that this thread should be used for discussion of
the DIP, while the other thread should be used for discussion of the
blog post/OB/@live.

July 16
On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 03:04:53 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 7/15/2019 6:55 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use the post in the Announce forum for that:
>> 
>> https://forum.dlang.org/post/hetwxvibgqcmoltvnoda@forum.dlang.org
>
> Wait, what?  Why are we encouraging / having _discussions_ on the _announce_ list?  I know we've never prevented them in the past, but this is probably the first time I've seen active encouragement.  While I'm not an particularly active member of the community these days, I strongly disagree with this policy.

For what I understood this thread is exclusively for the DIP-1021 not for discussing the blog post.

Sasha.
July 16
On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 03:19:33 UTC, Les De Ridder wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 01:55:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> But *please do not discuss the blog post or its topic in this thread*! Use the post in the Announce forum for that:
>>
>> https://forum.dlang.org/post/hetwxvibgqcmoltvnoda@forum.dlang.org
>
> I believe Mike meant that this thread should be used for discussion of
> the DIP, while the other thread should be used for discussion of the
> blog post/OB/@live.

Exactly.

Sasha.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5 6 7