Re: Pull 1019
yebblies: Can an auto-ref function pointer/deltegate implicitly convert to ref? 9rnsr: To @yebblies : I yet not implement it because this is a basic proposal. IMHO, what he says is that behavior proposed by yebblies is some more complicated special cases he is not going to do within this pull request to keep things simple. All pulls are proposals, by the way, it is up to one of core devs (other than pull author) to make a decision about merging. On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 23:46:19 UTC, Namespace wrote: I have now seen something I've probably overlooked before. Here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019#issuecomment-11836011 Kenji says, that the pull is a basic _proposal_. What does this mean? It isn't merged until we made a final discussion and decision about that? :/ I thought that this is the solution for all C++ rvalue ref problems. Am i wrong? I'm asking so much because I've been using it already - and I love it. Without such thing it is very annoying to work with structs.
Re: Pull 1019
Thanks for your answer. That explains my question. I would love to see an official statement about this pull and this feature. But neither in the related threads or here in learn I get such statement. That is very sad because this feature is very important and long discussed.
Re: Pull 1019
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 13:42:36 UTC, Namespace wrote: Thanks for your answer. That explains my question. I would love to see an official statement about this pull and this feature. But neither in the related threads or here in learn I get such statement. That is very sad because this feature is very important and long discussed. And I must add: I read so often that Walter does not like to break existing code. But with dmd 2.061 structs aren't lvalues anymore (that was a correct decision) but auto ref (which would solve the problem and prevent breaking existing code) wasn't merged and it seems that this feature isn't that relevant if I look on the merge history. That a bit weird to me.
Re: Pull 1019
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 13:51:27 UTC, Namespace wrote: On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 13:42:36 UTC, Namespace wrote: Thanks for your answer. That explains my question. I would love to see an official statement about this pull and this feature. But neither in the related threads or here in learn I get such statement. That is very sad because this feature is very important and long discussed. And I must add: I read so often that Walter does not like to break existing code. break *cough* valid *cough* existing code. This wasn't really a new/changed feature that broke your code. It was just something that worked that never should have worked. I know it sucks being on your end, but that's how it is.
Re: Pull 1019
break *cough* valid *cough* existing code. This wasn't really a new/changed feature that broke your code. It was just something that worked that never should have worked. Ok, ok, it wasn't a valid solution but it was the only solution for handy programming with structs. We have still nothing which is compareable with the rvalue ref of C++ and now where this handy programming with structs is gone you have to write your code twice: for ref and for not ref. That is annoying. I know it sucks being on your end, but that's how it is. Yes it sucks and I hope it will change in the near future, but I'm not sure. Maybe I should get to like the idea that I have to write my code twice. Who knows how long it takes to merge this pull or to find another solution...
Re: Pull 1019
I have now seen something I've probably overlooked before. Here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019#issuecomment-11836011 Kenji says, that the pull is a basic _proposal_. What does this mean? It isn't merged until we made a final discussion and decision about that? :/ I thought that this is the solution for all C++ rvalue ref problems. Am i wrong? I'm asking so much because I've been using it already - and I love it. Without such thing it is very annoying to work with structs.
Re: Pull 1019
On Friday, 18 January 2013 at 13:13:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-01-18 14:07, Namespace wrote: Despite the danger that this annoy you probably: What about pull 1019 (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019)? I'm still quite new with Git so I do not know exactly what 1 Fail, 9 Pending means (and why it stands there so long) It means that the test suite failed. You can click Details to get more details about what failed. Ok I observe the pull been a while and have to say that the status is always the same: 1 Fails, 9 Pending. I also see that it is updated every few hours, but the status is still the same every time. Is this normal? Is that automatically update accordingly? And how is such a nice test environment integrated into a pull request?
Re: Pull 1019
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 09:29:07 UTC, Namespace wrote: On Friday, 18 January 2013 at 13:13:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-01-18 14:07, Namespace wrote: Despite the danger that this annoy you probably: What about pull 1019 (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019)? I'm still quite new with Git so I do not know exactly what 1 Fail, 9 Pending means (and why it stands there so long) It means that the test suite failed. You can click Details to get more details about what failed. Ok I observe the pull been a while and have to say that the status is always the same: 1 Fails, 9 Pending. I also see that it is updated every few hours, but the status is still the same every time. Is this normal? Is that automatically update accordingly? And how is such a nice test environment integrated into a pull request? It will remain the same until author of the pull request will actually take time to fix test errors or whatever fails there. AFAIR Brad is the one who should get most gratitude for that nice CI suite.
Re: Pull 1019
Does anyone else think, that merging this pull: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1428 would be better then waiting for pull 1019? Pull 1428 is ready to merge and use. If someday pull 1019 is ready, it can replace pull 1428. Fact is, that this problem has caused big issues by using structs. That's why a fast solution would be preferable.
Pull 1019
Despite the danger that this annoy you probably: What about pull 1019 (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019)? I'm still quite new with Git so I do not know exactly what 1 Fail, 9 Pending means (and why it stands there so long) and how current the merge determination is. But I'd like to know if someone has a prediction about when this rather important pull is, or can be merged. One reason for asking you about this is because my framework, Dgame, already uses this pull successfully. But forcing each potential user to merge this experimental pull by themselves can be a quite annoying. On the other side stands that the correction from structs being now rvalues has caused a significant gap in programming with them and one might wonder when that will be fixed.
Re: Pull 1019
On 2013-01-18 14:07, Namespace wrote: Despite the danger that this annoy you probably: What about pull 1019 (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019)? I'm still quite new with Git so I do not know exactly what 1 Fail, 9 Pending means (and why it stands there so long) It means that the test suite failed. You can click Details to get more details about what failed. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Pull 1019
On Friday, 18 January 2013 at 13:13:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-01-18 14:07, Namespace wrote: Despite the danger that this annoy you probably: What about pull 1019 (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019)? I'm still quite new with Git so I do not know exactly what 1 Fail, 9 Pending means (and why it stands there so long) It means that the test suite failed. You can click Details to get more details about what failed. Simply that your pull was tested on 1 machine (which failed), and was not yet tested on the rest of the machines. Since the current failure is due to a merge error, I think your pull gets pushed to the back of the list, and as such, probably doesn't get tested by the rest of the machines. You can see the linux 32 machine tests your code every couple of hours. you just need to rebase.
Re: Pull 1019
Ok, thanks. But nobody can tell me when and if the pull is merged, right? I think many users here would be pleased if someone could say something to this pull.
Re: Pull 1019
On Friday, 18 January 2013 at 18:35:47 UTC, Namespace wrote: Ok, thanks. But nobody can tell me when and if the pull is merged, right? I think many users here would be pleased if someone could say something to this pull. Not sure what you mean? Nobody will tell you when your pull fails the unittests. When your pull actually gets merged for real into the head, you aren't notified either (sadly), but the puller usually leaves a merged comment, and you get *that* notification.
Re: Pull 1019
Not sure what you mean? Nobody will tell you when your pull fails the unittests. When your pull actually gets merged for real into the head, you aren't notified either (sadly), but the puller usually leaves a merged comment, and you get *that* notification. It isn't my pull but I want to know if this pull is merged in the near future because it fix the auto ref problem and that is a very big issue. Also I want to know if someone is working on the pull currently.
Re: Pull 1019
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, monarch_dodra wrote: On Friday, 18 January 2013 at 18:35:47 UTC, Namespace wrote: Ok, thanks. But nobody can tell me when and if the pull is merged, right? I think many users here would be pleased if someone could say something to this pull. Not sure what you mean? Nobody will tell you when your pull fails the unittests. When your pull actually gets merged for real into the head, you aren't notified either (sadly), but the puller usually leaves a merged comment, and you get *that* notification. Actually, github _does_ send a notification when the pull is merged. They added that some time ago.
