On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:27:57PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: > 30-Jan-2013 01:52, Dmitry Olshansky пишет: > >Recap: > >During a couple of rounds of the informal review new std.uni had its > >docs happily destroyed, and later re-written based on the feedback. > > > > [snip] > > >- Squeezed extra 31Kb slack from object-file size (32 bits, more on > >64). Now all of the packed tables occupy around 350Kb (32bits) and > >If you happen to know some tricks to reduce object file size (and in > >turn the executable size), please chime in. > > My post got lost in the ether apparently. And it even wasn't complete > - and on 64bits it's 464Kb of tables alone. Needless to say I'm > worried about these sizes getting too large given that D is pretty > much statically linked ATM.
It didn't get lost. I saw it. I just haven't had the chance to review it yet. :) [...] > Let me make it more explicit. > > I'm looking for a review manager and anybody willing to revive the > review process instead of venting steam on proper property (pun > intended) design and seeking a value in requiring parens on no-arg > call (or proving otherwise). [...] Yeah I've basically resorted to thread-deleting the entire @property thread along with its several unending sibling threads. It's not so much that I don't care about it, as that it's just gotten too long-winded and tiring. I'm ready to throw up my hands and let it all go down the pipes. I don't think I've the time/energy to be a review manager, but I *will* try to get to reviewing the code again sometime soon. IMNSHO, getting the new std.uni into Phobos is *far* more important (and far more profitable!) than the mountain out of molehill that is the current property discussion. T -- I'm still trying to find a pun for "punishment"...
