On Sunday, 27 May 2018 at 13:44:40 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
I don't know what's happening with this DIP, but I've recently
encountered a real-world problem for which there is no
palatable workaround that this DIP would likely solve:
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/2184#pullrequestrevie
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should
occur in this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET
on August 10
On Monday, 31 July 2017 at 19:27:46 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 23:25:35 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 21:47:32 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
* Remove the whole program defaults, I'm ok with it being
changed in a re-implementation of the runtime (
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 23:25:35 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 21:47:32 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
* Remove the whole program defaults, I'm ok with it being
changed in a re-implementation of the runtime (like the
embedded example), we just don't need the extra confus
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 21:47:32 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
Thanks in advance to all who participate.
Destroy!
My primary points
* Don'
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
Thanks in advance to all who participate.
Destroy!
My primary points
* Don't formally deprecate the keywords, there is not enough
justific
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 11:45:21 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:50:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Should public have @ on it? Should static have @ on it? What
about scope, const, or shared?
If they are storage classes, they shouldn't have @. If they are
statement
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:50:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Should public have @ on it? Should static have @ on it? What
about scope, const, or shared?
If they are storage classes, they shouldn't have @. If they are
statement or expression keywords, they shouldn't have @. Things
like tha
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:30:28 UTC, sarn wrote:
To be totally honest, as it stands it feels like architecture
astronautics:
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/
Yeah, I think you nailed it. This DIP does seem to come from a
'what is the sm
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 07:50:43 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP
should occur in this threa
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should
occur in this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET
on August 10
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 06:31:08 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:38:33 +
schrieb Nicholas Wilson :
It is actually a very simple change, from the end user
perspective.
* Function attributes that were keyword like, become regular
attributes.
* They can be applied to module
Am Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:38:33 +
schrieb Nicholas Wilson :
> On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 15:48:04 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> >> DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
> >>
> >> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:50:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 01:13:10 Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
IIRC the reason they lack a leading @ is purely historical and
considered not good but not worth breaking code over. I
believe this DIP presents an opportu
On Friday, July 28, 2017 01:13:10 Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> IIRC the reason they lack a leading @ is purely historical and
> considered not good but not worth breaking code over. I believe
> this DIP presents an opportunity and reason to make that change.
> Existing code will still
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:26:19 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:13:10 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Terminology:
I was confused by the term "attribute group". Although the
term is defined in the DIP, it implies a combination of
attributes rather than a mutually exclusive attr
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:26:19 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:13:10 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Terminology:
I was confused by the term "attribute group". Although the
term is defined in the DIP, it implies a combination of
attributes rather than a mutually exclusive attr
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
Like others in this thread have said, it needs more rationale.
The rationale only mentions one actual problem: attributes can't
be undone
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:13:10 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Terminology:
I was confused by the term "attribute group". Although the
term is defined in the DIP, it implies a combination of
attributes rather than a mutually exclusive attribute
category. Still having trouble understanding t
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 00:32:33 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
Terminology:
I was confused by the term "attribute group". Although the term
is define
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
Terminology:
I was confused by the term "attribute group". Although the term
is defined in the DIP, it implies a combination of attributes
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 00:20:25 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 23:27:53 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
Might be useful to mention why not included.
This DIP focuses on function (i.e. @-like attributes), the
rest of those attributes are storage classes/visibility
classes o
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 23:27:53 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
Might be useful to mention why not included.
This DIP focuses on function (i.e. @-like attributes), the rest
of those attributes are storage classes/visibility classes or
parametric in a way that doesn't fit with this DIP (ex
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 18:06:41 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I think those are only for overwriting @nogc module, but the
DIP should be more clear on this matter. I would assume you can
import core.attribute to simplify that.
core.attribute will be implicitly imported. That is the FQN. As a
regul
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 16:56:14 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP
should occur in this thread. The review period will end at
11:59 PM
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 17:35:34 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
I don't want to see monsters like
"@core.attribute.GarbageCollectedness.inferred" as part of any
declaration, ever.
I agree that the problem is valid, but I don't think adding the
complexity and verboseness presented in the DIP can
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 15:48:04 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
This DIP proposes a very complex change (treating attributes as
Enums), but
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 15:40:01 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:58:22 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
_Why_ it works like that I have no idea.
I thought that the attributes were just using the same behavior
as public/private/etc.
Anyway, isn't that the same type of behav
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:58:22 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
"at the top of a file means that one can never "undo" those
attributes"
That's not true for `@safe`. This is perfectly legal:
@safe:
void foo() { ... }// foo is @safe
void bar() @system { } // bar is @system
_Why_ it works l
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Destroy!
Extend rationale: could be application to templates and using
with CTFE.
"inferred" is not consistent. As I understand inferred applies to
templates only. And default value is so called
inferred_or_system. So it is infe
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:44:23 +, Mike Parker wrote:
> DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
1. I would like to see consistency; I'd rather see @nogc and @gc than @nogc
and @core.attributes.[whatever].gc, so all these attributes should
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 17:35:34 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
I don't want to see monsters like
"@core.attribute.GarbageCollectedness.inferred" as part of any
declaration, ever.
I agree that the problem is valid, but I don't think adding the
complexity and verboseness presented in the DIP c
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should
occur in this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET
on August 10
Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should occur in
this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on August 10 (3:59
AM GMT August 11), or when I make a
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
This DIP proposes a very complex change (treating attributes as
Enums), but doesn't really provide a rationale for these changes.
The DIP'
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:58:22 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
_Why_ it works like that I have no idea.
I thought that the attributes were just using the same behavior
as public/private/etc.
Anyway, isn't that the same type of behavior this DIP is
suggesting? There is an @nogc module foo;
On Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 14:44:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1012 is titled "Attributes".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1012.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should
occur in this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET
on August 10
37 matches
Mail list logo
