Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 2 March 2014 09:51, Martin Nowak wrote: > On 02/25/2014 06:00 AM, Manu wrote: > >> In lieu of a clear roadmap, I'm just going to list the things actively >> holding me up on a daily basis. >> Others encouraged to add theirs, maybe we'll see patterns emerge. >> > > Just another wishlist thread? > Clearly for a roadmap you have to match demand with possible supply. > If you want to implement something or you found someone to do it for you > put it on the Agenda (http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda). Well there's not really any record of short-term goals, and they also tend to change regularly; existing issues are fixed bringing other/new issues to the foreground, projects change, etc. Surely it seems reasonable to define some short term goals according to the needs of people actually writing D code on a daily basis? So, the point was to identify things that are actively interfering with peoples work on a daily basis. If nobody wants to work on them, fine, but it needs to be known somewhere what things are a daily hassle. 1. Options to select CRT reference for DMD-Win64, and /Zl equiv option >> to omit any such reference. >> > Not sure what this is for, won't -defaultlib= + manual linking already do > the job? Is this very important or just a personal issue of yours? MSCOFF objects embed a reference to the std lib they were built against, and intend to be linked against. When linking against MSC code, if these references aren't embedded correctly or aren't matching, it creates a bunch of hassles when linking. There are workarounds which suppress errors, and force linking of particular runtimes, but it's definitely preferable to just embed the proper CRT references in the objects when compiling, otherwise you run the risk of silencing legitimate errors from other sources and linking broken code. Additionally, users who aren't linker experts will never work out how to link successfully. It can be very frustrating for anyone who doesn't understand the problem (and shouldn't have to). Basically, if you interact DMD with MSC code, this really needs to be sorted out properly. I consider this a critical issue to resolve if we are to say we support windows properly, and I for one do have to stuff around with these issues very frequently. 2. **Debugging**; concerted focus to tighten the experience. Classes, >> enums, globals (and more) all don't work. Locals with the same name >> appearing in multiple sub-scope's within the same function confuse the >> debugger. Control statements (break, continue, etc) don't seem to emit >> line numbers; single stepping skips right over them. >> > Debugging is important, but personally I have no interest to work on > Windows debug information. Your best bet is to pair up with Rainer who > already has a lot to do maintaining VisualD. Walter and Rainer both have an interest in this, and Rainer has lots of existing pull requests that need attention. 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change >> semantics). >> > There seem to be competing DIPs. Please assemble the available information > and any existing discussion outcome and update the wiki accordingly. > Also this might need a final discussion/voting round and at least a glance > from Walter and Andrei. > If Kenji has enough time, he might be able to help you with the > implementation. > Yes, I don't think this was ever fully resolved. It needs more discussion. I'm just trying to raise the topic. I really don't want to spend time at dconf talking about this again. It's so annoying trying to do any code with vectors and matrices without it. I'd like to add one more: 4. Immutable AA's; ie, static maps. Surely the use of static maps are super common? I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often? The existing workaround (module constructor initialisation) is pretty annoying.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 at 01:49:06 UTC, Meta wrote: Does everything on this list actually have someone willing to implement it? There's a lot of good stuff here. I think only the std.variant rewrite isn't backed by anyone. We might as well drop it. http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda#Rework_std.variant.27s_Algebraic_.28ADTs.29 http://forum.dlang.org/post/fybjvhikadtxtnvcw...@forum.dlang.org The rest ranges between intention and ready pull requests.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Saturday, 1 March 2014 at 23:51:32 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Just another wishlist thread? Clearly for a roadmap you have to match demand with possible supply. If you want to implement something or you found someone to do it for you put it on the Agenda (http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda). Does everything on this list actually have someone willing to implement it? There's a lot of good stuff here.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 02/25/2014 06:00 AM, Manu wrote: In lieu of a clear roadmap, I'm just going to list the things actively holding me up on a daily basis. Others encouraged to add theirs, maybe we'll see patterns emerge. Just another wishlist thread? Clearly for a roadmap you have to match demand with possible supply. If you want to implement something or you found someone to do it for you put it on the Agenda (http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda). 1. Options to select CRT reference for DMD-Win64, and /Zl equiv option to omit any such reference. Not sure what this is for, won't -defaultlib= + manual linking already do the job? Is this very important or just a personal issue of yours? 2. **Debugging**; concerted focus to tighten the experience. Classes, enums, globals (and more) all don't work. Locals with the same name appearing in multiple sub-scope's within the same function confuse the debugger. Control statements (break, continue, etc) don't seem to emit line numbers; single stepping skips right over them. Debugging is important, but personally I have no interest to work on Windows debug information. Your best bet is to pair up with Rainer who already has a lot to do maintaining VisualD. 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). There seem to be competing DIPs. Please assemble the available information and any existing discussion outcome and update the wiki accordingly. Also this might need a final discussion/voting round and at least a glance from Walter and Andrei. If Kenji has enough time, he might be able to help you with the implementation.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 05:01:30 UTC, Manu wrote: What are yours? 1. const inference for template parameters. https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7521 2. Fix CTFE memory usage. https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6498 3. const correctness of object (new design) https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1824
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
Fix issue 12256 / 9335 (http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bug-1225...@https.d.puremagic.com%2Fissues%2F & https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9335) Since I use shared pointer, it is a torture to work with D built-in arrays / AA's. :/
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Saturday, 1 March 2014 at 05:00:08 UTC, Mike wrote: On Saturday, 1 March 2014 at 03:47:37 UTC, SomeDude wrote: You didn't explain why you need this feature and its benefits. I didn't think an explanation was necessary, but ok. Right now there's no way to quantify your preference. You can only say you want the bug fixed or you don't. You don't get to say how badly you want it fixed. Being able allocate more of your allowance to something allows you to quantify its value. To allocate more towards one issue gives you less to allocate towards other issues. I didn't get it was in the context of keeping a limited number of possible votes. I understood the original request was to remove the cap on votes/person. Those two features are mutually exclusive. What coud be also possible is capping a number of votes/person/month (if the system allws that). That would allow someone to cast 12 votes/year on a single bug. Still, I don't like the idea of someone casting several votes on a bug, unless we also display the number of different voters next to the total number of votes. Because a bug with 10 votes from 10 different voters is arguably more important than a bug with 10 votes by a single voter.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Saturday, 1 March 2014 at 03:47:37 UTC, SomeDude wrote: You didn't explain why you need this feature and its benefits. I didn't think an explanation was necessary, but ok. Right now there's no way to quantify your preference. You can only say you want the bug fixed or you don't. You don't get to say how badly you want it fixed. Being able allocate more of your allowance to something allows you to quantify its value. To allocate more towards one issue gives you less to allocate towards other issues. "The cost of something is what you give up to get it" - Principles of Economics, Translated by Yoram Bauman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4 You'll probably find this educational and enter Allowing multiple votes per user obviously skews the results and defeats the purpose of voting. Yeah, "obviously" it is I who doesn't understand.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote: 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are yours? Every year again: rvalue references. :) I'm not in a hurry seeing this added to D. In fact, I think we should wait a few years for C++ feedback on this feature. It might be that in a couple of years, the gen eral consensus is that it was not such a great idea after all, or that the implementation could have been improved in such or such way. The current body of experience is not large enough for a clear view.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 01:34:36 UTC, Mike wrote: On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 01:32:43 UTC, Mike wrote: I created an enhancement request here: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/post_bug.cgi. Damn! Here's the correct link: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12259 Mike You didn't explain why you need this feature and its benefits. Allowing multiple votes per user obviously skews the results and defeats the purpose of voting.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 10:36:14 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
Make it possible to defined implicit conversions between
wrapped types in order to, for instance, correctly implement
NotNull for reference types.
I'm pretty sure multiple alias this would do the trick.
interface A {}
interface B {}
class C : A, B {}
class D : C {}
NotNull!D should implicitly cast to NotNull!C AND to D (the
latter gives access to the methods here too so it should be
preferred).
NotNull!C should implicitly cast to C (the first one to try),
NotNull!A, NotNull!B, and NotNull!Object.
Multiple alias this would allow that.
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6083
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 12:19:32 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote: it simply means "I have encountered this bug"/"I have seen this bug report". But it is also quite useful statistis on its own - how often specific issue is encountered by random D user.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 14:59:53 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote: a 10 ten does hold more value than a top 50 or top 100. But top 10*
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 12:19:32 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote: "Brad Anderson" wrote in message news:gzknvsxmtkqoukkdk...@forum.dlang.org... I do find myself agonizing over what vote to drop whenever I hit a new issue I want to add a vote for so I'm in favor of this too. That's the point. Currently a vote means "this issue is in my top 10" or at least "this bug annoyed me enough I made a bugzilla account" but with many votes each it simply means "I have encountered this bug"/"I have seen this bug report". The more votes per user the closer they get to a meaningless "+1". Then again, I never look at votes when deciding which issues to fix, so changing it won't really affect me either way. Statistically speaking, making a vote more meaningless and increasing the total quantity of votes will actually increase the accuracy of the statistic. When looking at a single person, a 10 ten does hold more value than a top 50 or top 100. But when looking at the aggregate of all votes, more votes is better.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
"Brad Anderson" wrote in message news:gzknvsxmtkqoukkdk...@forum.dlang.org... I do find myself agonizing over what vote to drop whenever I hit a new issue I want to add a vote for so I'm in favor of this too. That's the point. Currently a vote means "this issue is in my top 10" or at least "this bug annoyed me enough I made a bugzilla account" but with many votes each it simply means "I have encountered this bug"/"I have seen this bug report". The more votes per user the closer they get to a meaningless "+1". Then again, I never look at votes when deciding which issues to fix, so changing it won't really affect me either way.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
"Brad Anderson" wrote in message news:wngrzrehfxalejkru...@forum.dlang.org... On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 09:08:05 UTC, Mike wrote: > 3. All pull requests older than 6 months acted upon, or closed With the Daniel Murphy's completion[1] of his refactoring of the DMDFE in order to begin converting the D frontend to D this item has become more important for that transition to go smoothly, I suspect. 1. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1980#issuecomment-35830996 Not exactly. Once I get it all set up, converting a pull request to D will be fairly automatic. The recent refactoring broke many pulls over and over again, while the D switch will break all of them only once.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
What are yours? Make it possible to defined implicit conversions between wrapped types in order to, for instance, correctly implement NotNull for reference types. See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21588742/getting-notnull-right?noredirect=1#comment33399977_21588742
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 02:52:09 UTC, Mike wrote: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote: What are yours? Every year again: rvalue references. :) Looks like it's here (https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9238). Only 2 votes, though. We're discussing this stuff since years and I'm pretty sure that in exactly one year we will discuss this again. ;)
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote: What are yours? Every year again: rvalue references. :) Looks like it's here (https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9238). Only 2 votes, though.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 2/25/14, 5:32 PM, Mike wrote: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 23:28:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I should reiterate my request to add more bugzilla votes available to people (e.g. 10). Current quota is 10. Yah, I thought it's 5... anyhow it's insufficient as it is. I also recommend that a user be allowed to assign more than one vote per issue. See "Maximum votes a person can put on a single bug" here (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.2/en/html/voting.html) I created an enhancement request here: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/post_bug.cgi. Go ahead and vote for it! I'm skeptical that votes actually influence action, but they do provide a nice metric for gauging impact, importance, and value to the community. It should inform our bountysource assignments. Andrei
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 at 01:32:43 UTC, Mike wrote: I created an enhancement request here: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/post_bug.cgi. Damn! Here's the correct link: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12259 Mike
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 23:28:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I should reiterate my request to add more bugzilla votes available to people (e.g. 10). Current quota is 10. I also recommend that a user be allowed to assign more than one vote per issue. See "Maximum votes a person can put on a single bug" here (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.2/en/html/voting.html) I created an enhancement request here: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/post_bug.cgi. Go ahead and vote for it! I'm skeptical that votes actually influence action, but they do provide a nice metric for gauging impact, importance, and value to the community. Mike
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 21:32:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:52:12PM +, Brad Anderson wrote: I'd just like to point out for everyone in this conversation that you can vote for issues in bugzilla. The vote tally is a much easier way for the people who work on the compiler to quantify what the community wants from D. On that note, could we pretty please remove the restriction of 10 votes per person? It makes it less useful because I keep having to think twice about whether to vote or not, how many votes I have left, and whether the current bug is more important than another so that I can transfer the vote over, etc.. In the end, I just don't bother voting at all. I do find myself agonizing over what vote to drop whenever I hit a new issue I want to add a vote for so I'm in favor of this too.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 2/25/14, 12:12 AM, Manu wrote: On 25 February 2014 17:22, Walter Bright mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com>> wrote: On 2/24/2014 9:00 PM, Manu wrote: 1. Options to select CRT reference for DMD-Win64, and /Zl equiv option to omit any such reference. 2. **Debugging**; concerted focus to tighten the experience. Classes, enums, globals (and more) all don't work. Locals with the same name appearing in multiple sub-scope's within the same function confuse the debugger. Control statements (break, continue, etc) don't seem to emit line numbers; single stepping skips right over them. 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are the bugzilla numbers for these? https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12163 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12127 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12126 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12125 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11961 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11902 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12244 #3 remains an ongoing debate... I should reiterate my request to add more bugzilla votes available to people (e.g. 10). I recall Don protested this the first time around, but a lot of things have improved since (and I didn't agree with his arguments in the first place). Andrei
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:52:12PM +, Brad Anderson wrote: > I'd just like to point out for everyone in this conversation that > you can vote for issues in bugzilla. The vote tally is a much easier > way for the people who work on the compiler to quantify what the > community wants from D. On that note, could we pretty please remove the restriction of 10 votes per person? It makes it less useful because I keep having to think twice about whether to vote or not, how many votes I have left, and whether the current bug is more important than another so that I can transfer the vote over, etc.. In the end, I just don't bother voting at all. So, can we please remove that restriction? I don't know if it was introduced to prevent abuse, but as I see it, unless someone is out to game the system (in which case we have bigger problems than just wrong tally counts), it's not necessary to try to prevent abuse because a single user can vote for the same bug only once. So it's not like you can easily inflate the votes anyway. > I don't know how much the major compiler devs use the votes for > making decisions but at least it'd less ephemeral than these forum > posts that will be gone and forgotten in a day or two. > > Here's the issue list sorted by votes: > > https://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&query_format=advanced&votes=1&order=votes I think this list will be much more meaningful if the voting restriction was removed. T -- If the comments and the code disagree, it's likely that *both* are wrong. -- Christopher
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
I'd just like to point out for everyone in this conversation that you can vote for issues in bugzilla. The vote tally is a much easier way for the people who work on the compiler to quantify what the community wants from D. I don't know how much the major compiler devs use the votes for making decisions but at least it'd less ephemeral than these forum posts that will be gone and forgotten in a day or two. Here's the issue list sorted by votes: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&query_format=advanced&votes=1&order=votes
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 08:58:09 UTC, luminousone wrote: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3332 I just wrote a comment in there... I'm not sure it is a bug (nor is it restricted to templates)
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
Though they don't hold me up, I don't see why the following haven't been dealt with: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4147 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=704 The latter to a lesser extent since it is not clear whether it is simply an invalid report. I'd also like: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11788
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 18:14:07 UTC, michaelc37 wrote: On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote: 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are yours? Every year again: rvalue references. :) +1 Did a solution come out of this thread? http://forum.dlang.org/thread/km3k8v$80p$1...@digitalmars.com?page=1 is it dip39? http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP39 No Andrei insist on his proposed solution which works already for templates: auto ref But nobody has implemented a good enough proposal which convinced him and Walter. I tried something nearly a year ago: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ntsyfhesnywfxvzbe...@forum.dlang.org#post-ntsyfhesnywfxvzbemwc:40forum.dlang.org It resulted in DIP 36: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP36 which was rejected.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote: 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are yours? Every year again: rvalue references. :) +1 Did a solution come out of this thread? http://forum.dlang.org/thread/km3k8v$80p$1...@digitalmars.com?page=1 is it dip39? http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP39
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 05:01:30 UTC, Manu wrote: What are yours? The stuff listed on the wiki agenda (http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda) is nice and will definitely make the language cleaner. However for me there are two elephants in the room. A major argument in favor of Go tends to be focused around its straightforward parallelism support. D's support is good but not yet as straightforward. I like ranges. But I would also like to be able to use yield (a la coroutines) + async/await (from .NET). Making this work seamlessly with std.parallelism and integrating it directly into the language (similar to how threads currently are) would really make D a slam dunk. Along with this, std.parallelism's performance could be improved to the point where there is no more concern about it being as fast as green-thread implementations in other languages. Here are two recent threads that discuss this topic. http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.126.1390929933.13884.digitalmar...@puremagic.com http://forum.dlang.org/thread/teiustvtqwcvdmmmd...@forum.dlang.org The second elephant is memory usage. Based on recent discussions on the possible use of ARC/scopebuffer/std.allocator/etc. it seems that soon Phobos will get some major assistance in this regard. Awesome. Really looking forward too to the GC improvements and integration of the up-and-coming allocator module. Here are two threads talking about memory usage. scopebuffer - http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ld2586$17f6$1...@digitalmars.com tracing api - http://forum.dlang.org/thread/l8lup8$2bgl$1...@digitalmars.com The following links are encouraging. They show Andrei's statements on the need to focus on memory allocation right now. http://forum.dlang.org/thread/grngmshdtwqfaftef...@forum.dlang.org?page=11#post-lclta7:241rdg:241:40digitalmars.com http://forum.dlang.org/thread/grngmshdtwqfaftef...@forum.dlang.org?page=14#post-lcoskl:241g8t:241:40digitalmars.com I think of the following foci for the first half of 2014: 1. Add @nullable and provide a -nullable compiler flag to verify it. The attribute is inferred locally and for white-box functions (lambdas, templates), and required as annotation otherwise. References not annotated with @nullable are statically enforced to never be null. 2. Work on Phobos to see what can be done about avoiding unnecessary allocation. Most likely we'll need to also add a @nogc flag. 3. Work on adding tracing capabilities to allocators and see how to integrate them with the language and Phobos. 4. Work on the core language and druntime to see how to seamlessly accommodate alternate GC mechanisms such as reference counting. Andrei These are the two big things that I am hoping will get some attention. Thanks Joseph
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 09:08:05 UTC, Mike wrote: 3. All pull requests older than 6 months acted upon, or closed With the Daniel Murphy's completion[1] of his refactoring of the DMDFE in order to begin converting the D frontend to D this item has become more important for that transition to go smoothly, I suspect. 1. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1980#issuecomment-35830996
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
this one is just annoying, at least to me https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=648
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 26 February 2014 01:54, Timothee Cour wrote:
> shared libraries on OSX:
>
Oh yeah, that one's critical on all platforms. But as far as I can tell,
that one is being actively worked on, and moving as fast as it moves.
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12190
> runtime loaded shared library on osx: partially worked in 2.062, fails
> since 2.063
>
>
> Also, this was marked as fixed (with bounty :) ):
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11478
> shared library on osx: worked in 2.062, fails in 2.063.2, still fails in
> 2.064
>
> but there still seems to be issues: see last comment ("It's supposed to
> print that, because shared libraries aren't yet supported on OSX.")
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Remo wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>>
>>> 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change
semantics).
These above anything else are interfering with my work every day.
What are yours?
>>>
>>> Every year again: rvalue references. :)
>>>
>>
>> +1 for this too !
>>
>> Add struct default constructors that execute
>> code!!!
>>
>
>
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
shared libraries on OSX:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12190
runtime loaded shared library on osx: partially worked in 2.062, fails
since 2.063
Also, this was marked as fixed (with bounty :) ):
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11478
shared library on osx: worked in 2.062, fails in 2.063.2, still fails in
2.064
but there still seems to be issues: see last comment ("It's supposed to
print that, because shared libraries aren't yet supported on OSX.")
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Remo wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:
>
>> 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change
>>> semantics).
>>>
>>> These above anything else are interfering with my work every day.
>>>
>>> What are yours?
>>>
>>
>> Every year again: rvalue references. :)
>>
>
> +1 for this too !
>
> Add struct default constructors that execute
> code!!!
>
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 12:35:18 UTC, Namespace wrote: 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are yours? Every year again: rvalue references. :) +1 for this too ! Add struct default constructors that execute code!!!
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 05:01:30 UTC, Manu wrote: In lieu of a clear roadmap, I'm just going to list the things actively holding me up on a daily basis. Others encouraged to add theirs, maybe we'll see patterns emerge. What are yours? Enhanced privacy: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1238 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5770 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11234 etc.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are yours? Every year again: rvalue references. :)
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 02/25/2014 06:00 AM, Manu wrote: In lieu of a clear roadmap, I'm just going to list the things actively holding me up on a daily basis. ... What are yours? Forward reference errors.
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11902 +1 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12244 +1
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 05:01:30 UTC, Manu wrote: What are yours? 1. Resolve grammar issues (https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10233) 2. Move TypeInfo to the D Runtime as articulated here (http://forum.dlang.org/post/eiwalbqlbkipdrmsr...@forum.dlang.org). No bug report yet (that I'm aware of) as I think it needs a little more critique. 3. All pull requests older than 6 months acted upon, or closed
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3332 This would be my request for 2.066
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 2/25/2014 12:12 AM, Manu wrote: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12163 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12127 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12126 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12125 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11961 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11902 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12244 #3 remains an ongoing debate... Thanks!
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 25 February 2014 17:48, w0rp wrote: > On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 05:01:30 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change >> semantics). >> > > It would be nice to see this problem solved in an acceptable way. I came > across it again recently when writing source files generated from C++, and > realised my best course of action at the moment is probably to write 'auto > ref const(T)' in my generated code in place of 'ref const(T).' > If you do work with vectors or matrices, you will encounter it every few minutes :)
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 25 February 2014 17:22, Walter Bright wrote: > On 2/24/2014 9:00 PM, Manu wrote: > >> 1. Options to select CRT reference for DMD-Win64, and /Zl equiv option to >> omit >> any such reference. >> 2. **Debugging**; concerted focus to tighten the experience. Classes, >> enums, >> globals (and more) all don't work. Locals with the same name appearing in >> multiple sub-scope's within the same function confuse the debugger. >> Control >> statements (break, continue, etc) don't seem to emit line numbers; single >> stepping skips right over them. >> 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change >> semantics). >> >> These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. >> > > What are the bugzilla numbers for these? > https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12163 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12127 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12126 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12125 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11961 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11902 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12244 #3 remains an ongoing debate...
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 05:01:30 UTC, Manu wrote: 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). It would be nice to see this problem solved in an acceptable way. I came across it again recently when writing source files generated from C++, and realised my best course of action at the moment is probably to write 'auto ref const(T)' in my generated code in place of 'ref const(T).'
Re: Top-3 for 2.066
On 2/24/2014 9:00 PM, Manu wrote: 1. Options to select CRT reference for DMD-Win64, and /Zl equiv option to omit any such reference. 2. **Debugging**; concerted focus to tighten the experience. Classes, enums, globals (and more) all don't work. Locals with the same name appearing in multiple sub-scope's within the same function confuse the debugger. Control statements (break, continue, etc) don't seem to emit line numbers; single stepping skips right over them. 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are the bugzilla numbers for these?
Top-3 for 2.066
In lieu of a clear roadmap, I'm just going to list the things actively holding me up on a daily basis. Others encouraged to add theirs, maybe we'll see patterns emerge. 1. Options to select CRT reference for DMD-Win64, and /Zl equiv option to omit any such reference. 2. **Debugging**; concerted focus to tighten the experience. Classes, enums, globals (and more) all don't work. Locals with the same name appearing in multiple sub-scope's within the same function confuse the debugger. Control statements (break, continue, etc) don't seem to emit line numbers; single stepping skips right over them. 3. ref doesn't accept rvalues. Can't declare ref locals (pointers change semantics). These above anything else are interfering with my work every day. What are yours?
