On 11/12/12 11:45 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 12/11/2012 20:42, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
Hi all,
I'm back from a few long trips during which I got behind reading this
group. I decided to mark everything as read and restart anew. If there
are any topics that you believe have "extinguished" but need my
attention, I'd be indebted if you mentioned them to me via private email
or by replying to this.
Thanks,
Andrei
Topic on UDA obviously.
Thanks! I did follow that and in brief my opinion is:
* The feature looks good
* The choice of syntax is mostly motivated by the question: do we want
to integrate the existing "@"-attributes with the user-defined ones? If
so, the choice of the @ syntax is a consequence.
* I saw very little focus for attribute testing, i.e. "does symbol xyz
have attribute abc"? I don't think we should relegate that to a __traits.
* The execution of that feature (merging in the trunk along with a bunch
of unrelated work) was extremely poor. We need to acquire a sense of
urgency about fixing our process, lest this mom-and-pop-shop style of
getting work done will end up alienating our user base.
Topic on range transience probably, as it is
almost concluded.
I'm leaning toward doing nothing about this.
Andrei
