On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 16:25:53 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:08:45 -0400, Maxim Fomin
<ma...@maxim-fomin.ru> wrote:
No, sorry this cannot be accepted. Formal definitions can be
changed due to private POV and as far as spec exists, it is
higher priority on any private POV, especially when it is
problematic.
If we don't use the same terms to mean the same things, then
there is no point in discussing.
The spec's definition is somewhat wrong, and needs to be
clarified. This is an important thing when people coming from
other languages are trying to anchor what they know to what D
provides, we need to use correct terminology.
Please provide reasons why it is wrong (but without explanation
how druntime allocates memory which is irrelevant).
Once that is fixed (and you can come to grips with the change),
we can discuss.
-Steve
That's nice to hear, but at that point there would be no point
for discussions. I see no roots from where contradictory
definition in article comes from.
By the way, I decided to look into dmd sources to search for
slice and dynamic by using grep --color=auto -iRnH $1 *.c *.h
command where $1 stands for 'slice' and 'dynamic'. Slice search
shows hoards of lines related to slice expression and almost
nothing to dynamic array, and there are plenty of results which
shows how dynamic array type (according to spec) are actually
called dynamic arrays, including class TypeDArray.
http://pastebin.com/S2asda4c
http://pastebin.com/PQWXS7U2
Good luck fixing this.
