On Thursday, 27 June 2019 at 22:36:14 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 27.06.19 23:34, aliak wrote:
I really love that you go in to the code and find things like
this, especially when it comes to abuse of @trusted, but maybe
a little explanation as to why would be more helpful to the OP
;)
Probably.
On Thursday, 27 June 2019 at 22:36:14 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 27.06.19 23:34, aliak wrote:
I really love that you go in to the code and find things like
this, especially when it comes to abuse of @trusted, but maybe
a little explanation as to why would be more helpful to the OP
;)
Probably.
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 at 10:51:33 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Walter has a DIP currently in Draft Review that is a critical
feature for the implementation of safe ref counting. It needs
to have priority through the DIP process.
Before I move it to Community Review, it should be vetted for a
On Friday, 28 June 2019 at 07:22:56 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
I'm particularly interested in flow analysis features, and I
think I have something to contribute, but I don't want to spend
a large amount of effort debating and suggesting alternatives
if I expect to be stonewalled.
It seems
On Friday, 28 June 2019 at 07:52:59 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
address DIPs in the review threads, but they are not required
I meant to say they're required to address *feedback* in the
review threads.
On Friday, 28 June 2019 at 07:22:56 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 at 10:51:33 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/158
I'm going to be candid here:
Based on past experience, I'm worried that:
- This DIP will generate a lot of negative feedback.
-
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 at 10:51:33 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/158
I'm going to be candid here:
Based on past experience, I'm worried that:
- This DIP will generate a lot of negative feedback.
- Walter will ignore most of that feedback, or cherry-pick a few
