On 06/15/2016 02:50 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 16:40:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think there are a few considerable issues with the proposal, but
also that all are fixable.
I already sent a much longer message detailing some of the reasons why I
believe my design is sensible. But, before we continue this discussion
much further, I need to stop and make one thing clear:
What you are proposing is *not* "fixing" my design - it is basically
scrapping it and replacing it with a ground-up rewrite, with perhaps
some bits and pieces and general inspiration taken from my work.
I'd say that's a fair assessment on the face of it. But the pieces are
there and the grit and expertise to assemble them are already there. The
real question is what's the "right" design. Ideally we should optimize
for that.
I'm OK with the community rejecting my design if that's what people
really want to do, but I will not be implementing your proposal myself.
I will simply leave `checkedint` on DUB, and move on with my life.
That is sensible, and a course of action I thought would transpire. But
I suggest you to reconsider. Your PR is a solid implementation of the
wrong idea. Before anyone gets offended, let me add that I think there's
a lot of good in that. For this kind of work (not algorithm-intensive)
ideas are cheap; the solid implementation matters a lot more than the
idea - the same expertise can be put to use on another idea.
I tried to offer a careful review by a competent peer, with an eye for
taking an okay design toward a great design. The kind of review I wish
to get now as much as at any point of my career. They are difficult to
receive but often have a lot of potential in them.
So, I'm putting out a general call now for the community to download the
DUB package, try actually *using* it for something, and speak up as to
whether the design seems good, or not.
If the decision is made to accept the high-level design, then we can go
back to bikeshedding about names, fixing typos, tweaking/trimming the
API, etc.
I don't think checkedint in a form close to its current one is for
Phobos. I would argue it's not for D. Starting with the problem
statement "we want to check integral operations for overflow and other
surprising behaviors" and ending with 4.5 KLOC defining a bunch of names
in 6 modules makes it highly suspicious there is an overgrown underbelly
somewhere. The language features are not orchestrated properly. Even if
it were the case that there's no smaller design that conforms with the
requirements, that means requirements have a problem.
Andrei
