On 18/01/12 9:55 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/18/2012 1:12 PM, Zachary Lund wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 20:41:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/18/2012 12:10 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Usually, a newcomer isn't even sure if the bug comes from his/her
code or from
the compiler. How can you expect them to fill a bug about the spec ???
That's what these forums are for - to ask.
You don't think that lowers the probability of someone wanting to use D?
What do you suggest?
Well, it's kind of too late now, but ideally the implementation and
documentation should have evolved together, so that the situation we are
in now wouldn't have happened.
What happened instead was an incomplete spec popped up with no
implementation then the implementation tried to match it, whilst
changing parts of it (without updating the documentation) along the way.
We also now have the TDPL, which in parts disagrees with both the
implementation and the original spec.
What we can do now:
1. Hope that people are knowledgeable and willing enough to update the
documentation to match the current language state.
2. Ensure that any submitted pull requests into DMD that change language
features are also documented in the language spec at the same time.
Recent example: array covariance changed, but the language spec didn't.
I'm working on a pull request to fix the spec now.
We have to be much more diligent about keeping the spec up to date.
