https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
--- Comment #7 from Andre ---
I did a code review, made some rough changes and tested it successfully.
Conclusion: it's possible to implement a more efficient open() that re-uses the
File struct state, avoiding the destructor/free + constructor/mallo
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
Andre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|alver...@gmail.com |
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
Andre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.developer.an...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
--- Comment #6 from Sobirari Muhomori ---
Performance of `open` is an implementation detail, but deprecation applies to
interface. I'd say fix implementation to serve the intended purpose of the
method. If it's impossible or undesirable then deprecate
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
--- Comment #5 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to ag0aep6g from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andre from comment #3)
> > Regarding the follow up:
> > Is someone in particular responsible for this library or the proces of
> > deprecations for phob
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
--- Comment #4 from ag0ae...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andre from comment #3)
> So we narrowed it down to one point, shall I change the title to reflect
> this?
Yeah, I suppose you can do that.
> Regarding the follow up:
> Is someone in particular r
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
--- Comment #3 from Andre ---
I came to the same conclusion..
So we narrowed it down to one point, shall I change the title to reflect this?
Regarding the follow up:
Is someone in particular responsible for this library or the proces of
deprecations
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
ag0ae...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4763
Andre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
