See https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#parameters
I also noticed Walter removed `in` in this PR:
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6561
Should it be deprecated (not necessarily removed) to guide users
towards a more consistent and idiomatic usage of the language?
Also, if there are fe
On 6/8/2018 6:02 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
Should it be deprecated (not necessarily removed) to guide users towards a more
consistent and idiomatic usage of the language? Also, if there are fewer usages,
it will make it much easier to redefine `in` to something useful in the future.
'in' is su
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
But it was never enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing it
is just going to break code left and right.
It isn't going to break anything. It is going to *correctly
diagnose already broken code*.
That's a significant difference
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:17:18 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
But it was never enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing it
is just going to break code left and right.
It isn't going to break anything. It is going to *correctly
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
'in' is supposed to mean 'scope const'. But it was never
enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing it is just going to
break code left and right.
I think the breakage would be simple to mitigate. Anywhere `in`
is used we display
On 6/8/2018 7:17 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
But it was never enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing it is just going to
break code left and right.
It isn't going to break anything. It is going to *correctly diagnose already
brok
On 06/08/2018 09:55 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/8/2018 7:17 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
But it was never enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing it is just
going to break code left and right.
It isn't going to break anything. It
On 6/8/2018 8:12 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
Simple! And when v2.{whatever} comes around, we're all set with a better D.
My goal in the short term is that Phobos is going to compile successfully with
dip1000 the way it is now. It has already been deferred and deferred and deferred.
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 05:00:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
My goal in the short term is that Phobos is going to compile
successfully with dip1000 the way it is now. It has already
been deferred and deferred and deferred.
I understand that, and while you're doing that I can begin
implemen
On 6/8/2018 10:04 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 05:00:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
My goal in the short term is that Phobos is going to compile successfully with
dip1000 the way it is now. It has already been deferred and deferred and
deferred.
I understand that, and w
@Walter do you have a long term plan for `in`?
If not, is there a dependency(s) that when completed that would make you
feel more comfortable talking about it constructively?
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:26:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Your time is valuable, too, and while I'm not going to tell you
want to work on, I'd prefer something more important.
If that's how you feel then I clearly don't share your values.
To me, cleaning up the unimplemented, half-imple
On Friday, June 08, 2018 22:00:02 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 06/08/2018 09:55 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 6/8/2018 7:17 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>> But it was never enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing it
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 05:00:02 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 06/08/2018 09:55 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/8/2018 7:17 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
But it was never enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing
it is just going to brea
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:56:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Now that it is defined with DIP 1000, it seems like pretty much
everyone trying to use it has a hard time understanding it at
first (at least beyond the really simple cases).
It might have been because that the DIP is written in
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:40:08 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:26:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Your time is valuable, too, and while I'm not going to tell
you want to work on, I'd prefer something more important.
If that's how you feel then I clearly don't share
On 10/06/2018 6:56 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
Some of the things I've seen to be neglected are `shared`, `in`, broken
import in-variance, tooling, community, compiler brittleness. The
results of the dlang survery seem to have been ignored. Features like
"tuples", "named parameteers", "interpo
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:56:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Yes, but the exact mening of scope has never been clear. Plenty
of folks have made assumptions about what it meant, but it was
never actually defined. Now that it is defined with DIP 1000,
it seems like pretty much everyone tryin
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/8/2018 6:02 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
Should it be deprecated (not necessarily removed) to guide
users towards a more consistent and idiomatic usage of the
language? Also, if there are fewer usages, it will make it
much easier
On 6/11/18 7:48 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
* Currently one has to pass `-dip1000` to get `scope` to do anything.
This is opt-in. Any breakages would also be opt-in. I don't think
breakage considerations are important here.
Just on this point, there is nothing "opt in" about dip1000. Either all
th
On 6/11/18 9:11 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
For a while, phobos was partly compiled with dip1000 and it was a disaster.
I should say, this was only for unittests. Normal release was done
without dip1000.
-Steve
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:38:14 UTC, SonicFreak94 wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:17:18 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 02:13:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
But it was never enforced, meaning that suddenly enforcing it
is just going to break code left and right.
22 matches
Mail list logo
