Maybe stuff added to the language? User-defined attributes, for instance. LMB
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: > On Monday, June 03, 2013 00:29:09 Carl Sturtivant wrote: >> > This is awesome! I'm sure I speak on behalf of the entire >> > community that we'd be happy to help with anything you need. >> >> There is, perhaps, a need for a short technical document bringing >> TDPL up to date, i.e. consistent with the currently accepted view >> of the definition of D (wherever that resides). >> >> No doubt this is not necessary and the course will go fine >> without it, but it would be useful, as well as being encouraging >> to those students who exercise some initiative. > > And what about TDPL is so out of date? Its description of pure is that of > strongly pure and thus is not fully correct, but from what I recall, almost > everything in it that's not correct (aside from actually errors in the > original text - which are covered by the errata) simply hasn't been > implemented yet (e.g. multiple alias thises) and was not any more correct when > TDPL was released than it is now. So, AFAIK, very little in TDPL is incorrect > or actually needs to be updated, and almost all of what's incorrect is > supposed to be corrected by the feature in question actually being > implemented. > > - Jonathan M Davis