[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #23 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commit pushed to stable at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/53c5b59ca83e471fea6e4464862b39e62df0f335 Merge pull request #4458 from mihails-strasuns-sociomantic/redundant-attrib-deprec --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unspecified |D2 --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #22 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/9edd2223950b919a201cf104601f877283cca2bf Merge pull request #4458 from mihails-strasuns-sociomantic/redundant-attrib-deprec --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #21 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commit pushed to stable at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/9edd2223950b919a201cf104601f877283cca2bf Merge pull request #4458 from mihails-strasuns-sociomantic/redundant-attrib-deprec [REG] fix Issue 14232 : redundant attribute 'const' --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #20 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/53c5b59ca83e471fea6e4464862b39e62df0f335 Merge pull request #4458 from mihails-strasuns-sociomantic/redundant-attrib-deprec [REG] fix Issue 14232 : redundant attribute 'const' --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #19 from Dicebot --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4458 --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #18 from Martin Nowak --- (In reply to Kenji Hara from comment #17) > Accepting redundant attributes had not been documented in language spec, it > has been just accidentally accepted. Therefore, consistently disabling them > all is a bugfix. Even though it will break some user code suddenly, > deprecation process should not be applied. No, we shouldn't just break code without good reason. Certain changes that detect latent bugs might be OK (escape analysis), but fixing this error hardly adds any benefit for code owners. It's very trivial to fix though. There are plenty of small issues with dmd and if the compiler doesn't adhere to the specs we can't any programmer to do this instead. > And from a realistic reason, It's difficult. In old dmd version, some of > redundancies were properly disallowed, and remaining were (unintentionally) > accepted. To deprecate invalid accepted case, we should emulate old > unintentional compiler behavior. It's too costly, and I don't want to do it. I understand that, that's why I initially close the report and it's what I meant with comment 4. > Usually yes, but within reason, depending on how complicated it is to fix the > code compared to how complicated the deprecation is. But I'm fine with Dicebot adding a deprecation, if he want's to do it. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #17 from Kenji Hara --- (In reply to Martin Nowak from comment #4) > (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #3) > > should any bug be deprecated first — just in case somebody wrote invalid > > code relying on that bug? > > Usually yes, but within reason, depending on how complicated it is to fix > the code compared to how complicated the deprecation is. An application of deprecation process will be legitimate only when the deprecated behavior was valid and designed feature in old versions. Accepting redundant attributes had not been documented in language spec, it has been just accidentally accepted. Therefore, consistently disabling them all is a bugfix. Even though it will break some user code suddenly, deprecation process should not be applied. And from a realistic reason, It's difficult. In old dmd version, some of redundancies were properly disallowed, and remaining were (unintentionally) accepted. To deprecate invalid accepted case, we should emulate old unintentional compiler behavior. It's too costly, and I don't want to do it. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #16 from Ketmar Dark --- > How about you work with Brian on getting it integrated for 2.068? i've never seen a call for help from him. but sure, if he needs any help i can provide, i'm ready to do that... after dfix inclusion will be officially approved by Walter and Andrei. working for a trashcan is not fun. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #14 from Dicebot --- Thanks, working on it. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #15 from Martin Nowak --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #11) > i'm far from saying that nothing should be done. actually, i'm saying the > exact opposite thing: it's time to bless dfix and bundle it with compiler > package, so people can upgrade to new compiler versions without much pain. Yes, just like I said. Once dfix is ready and we include it in our release we might modify the policy for such changes. But we include dfix just a few days before a release. How about you work with Brian on getting it integrated for 2.068? --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #13 from Martin Nowak --- Thanks @dicebot. It's this error you're triggering. https://github.com/9rnsr/dmd/commit/1b932b9282df6ed312b6da0031417ea0d4f8faa5#diff-62dcb5f0ffc3089b7565897d8beb3322R918 At best you pass a `bool onlyWarn = false` to `appendStorageClass`, and then pass `true` for places were it didn't previously error. The actual error was introduced here. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3689 Be careful to preserve existing errors. https://github.com/9rnsr/dmd/commit/1b932b9282df6ed312b6da0031417ea0d4f8faa5#diff-62dcb5f0ffc3089b7565897d8beb3322R503 --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #12 from Dicebot --- Can you please resist the temptation to start another pointless discussion with ketmar? I don't want to disable notifications for this issue. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #10 from Martin Nowak --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #7) Once dfix is ready for primetime and is release with dmd we might switch to a model where we such changes are accompanied with a rewrite in dfix. But for now, it's really unprofessional to suddenly break code. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #11 from Ketmar Dark --- but why? it's not the compiler task to babysit old and broken code, it's lint(dfix) task. removing that burden from compiler allows alot more possibilities, as compiler code stays clean, and dfix can accumulate alot of checks, allowing easy fixing the code even from the very old compiler release with step-by-step upgrading. i'm far from saying that nothing should be done. actually, i'm saying the exact opposite thing: it's time to bless dfix and bundle it with compiler package, so people can upgrade to new compiler versions without much pain. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #9 from Dicebot --- It was introduced in 1b932b9282df6ed312b6da0031417ea0d4f8faa5 I am looking in how deprecation message can be added --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #8 from Martin Nowak --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #7) > so do you mean that if some syntax was allowed by accident, it should be > kept forever No it should be kept for one release with a deprecation warning attached. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #7 from Ketmar Dark --- so do you mean that if some syntax was allowed by accident, it should be kept forever, shitting compiler code with hacks over hacks trying to accept both valid code and invalid code? no, really, there is no single reason to accept invalid code. invalid code must not compile. not "silently accepted", not "warned", not "deprecated". or, taking "POV example", the bare minuimum of sanity in language is not accepting invalid code, regardless of how much somebody wants it to stay with us. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 Dicebot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED CC||pub...@dicebot.lv Resolution|WONTFIX |--- --- Comment #6 from Dicebot --- > Fixing something like this takes so little time that nobody cares. This is fundamentally flawed attitude I wish was less common in D community. As someone who is responsible for fixing stuff I don't even slightly care if required change is trivial or not - what I care most that the code that used to work (and work correctly!) suddenly stopped compiling with no warning and/or explanation. There shouldn't be legitimate reason for doing things like that ever, not matter how trivial and justified change is. Breaking changes are awesome but only when they are done right. I want to be sure that if I update the compiler stuff that wasn't warned in previous release will keep compiling. This is bare minimum for planning sane upgrades. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #5 from Ketmar Dark --- this effectively turns compiler code to unmaintainable spaghetti. and i believe that this is the perfect application for lint-like tool (yes, devs can finally bless dfix). with dfix blessed and considered the part of the compiler such bigfixes can be accompanied by a PR with new rule for dfix. this will solve the problem and allow keeping frontend code clean. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 --- Comment #4 from Martin Nowak --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #3) > should any bug be deprecated first — just in case somebody wrote invalid > code relying on that bug? Usually yes, but within reason, depending on how complicated it is to fix the code compared to how complicated the deprecation is. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org --- Comment #3 from Ketmar Dark --- should any bug be deprecated first — just in case somebody wrote invalid code relying on that bug? --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 Martin Nowak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232 briancsch...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||briancsch...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from briancsch...@gmail.com --- Here are my thoughts as somebody who is responsible for ensuring that my employer's D code is ready for new compiler releases: Fixing something like this takes so little time that nobody cares. Actually, we do care. We care that the compiler helped us fix bad code. If you want an example of the kind of problem that industry D users face during compiler upgrades, look at #14169 instead of this. --
[Issue 14232] redundant attribute 'const'
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14232
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara ---
The following program already reported same error in 2.066:
struct Bug
{
const const void bug()
{
}
}
test.d(3): Error: redundant attribute 'const'
--
