On 2013-11-15 13:41, Michel Fortin wrote:
That was my idea too initially: put it in the reference implementation and other implementations will follow, and it'll become part of the language. That'd be great. But it's hard when you have to fix the backend to emit what you need. I have some fears about that for the exception handling stuff in the modern runtime, perhaps they're unjustified.
Yeah, that's the biggest advantage of doing it in LDC. They already have the correct back end parts in place.
I wonder if Walter will approve the merge, despite his stated intention to do so eventually. The surface area of that patch is huge, it'll take him many hours for an initial review, and probably several iterations of that review process will be required to get it to pass. I remember my smaller-scale pull request #3 that never got reviewed... but maybe (hopefully?) things have changed since then.
Hopefully things are better now. There seems to be more people now that have a greater knowledge of DMD.
Haha. No. I skim by topic of interest. But I generally play the passive observer. Replying generally brings other replies, begging for more followup. I have a couple of replies that were written but which I never posted because I anticipated writing the eventual followups wouldn't be worth my time. It doesn't help that I tend to spend too much time carefully writing anything too, proofreading and weighing every word.
Understandable. Like my post about AST macros. It's always a hot topic.
But if you're talking about one of my projects there's more chance I'll pop in the conversation.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
