On Friday, 14 June 2013 at 20:31:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2013 1:02 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think in the end, we are optimizing here in the wrong place.
If a specific
hardware/software combination requires specific buffering, the
place to handle
it is in the runtime, not code on top of it. If the C runtime
that D uses isn't
up to snuff, let's use a different scheme, or abandon it all
together *for that
specific device*.
There's simply no reason to do that. There has been a fix
proposed that not only solves the problem correctly (your
solution is incomplete), it does not require any improvements
to the underlying C runtime.
I don't think any of the proposed fixes is a good idea. With he
one you are pushing for, the program can fail behind the feet of
the programmer, which is not better.
