"Michel Fortin" <michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote in message news:jetbld$23qt$1...@digitalmars.com... > Looks good in theory, but in practice this approach hasn't worked very > well for pull request number 3. >
I may have mentioned this before, but there are a couple of things that make me think pull 3 shouldn't be merged as is. (Even if it was made merge-ready) 1. The patch tries (and in some places, doesn't try) to match implicit conversion and template deduction behaviour for pointers and arrays which are badly defined and in some cases don't make any sense. I'd prefer to get those sorted out before adding a third referencey TypeNext to dmd. 2. The addition of head() means a huge amount of changes that aren't really necessary. Most of the changes are insertions of calls to this function, which introduces quite a bit of mess and potential for easy bugs if someone forgets to use it. I don't know if Walter has a similar list of reservations he's keeping to himself, or just hasn't gotten around to it yet. Hopefully I'll find some time to work on these issues (or somebody else will).