On 1/30/19 10:12 PM, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 7:05 PM Nicholas Wilson via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 31 January 2019 at 02:10:05 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:05 PM Andrei Alexandrescu via
fun(my_short); // implicit type conversions (ie, short->int
promotion)
========
Oh I see.
fun(short(10)); // implicit type conversions (ie, short->int
promotion)
I did not intend for this DIP to apply to anything other than
rvalues.
I can totally see how that's not clear. `my_short` should be an
rvalue
of some form, like the rest.
Is that the only such line?
I think so.
Presumably my_short is a variable of type short. Is that
correct?
It is not. It should be an rvalue like everything else. Perhaps
it's an enum... but I should write `short(10)`, that would be
clear.
It would.
* DIP 1016 proposes a hole in the language one could drive a
truck through.
I still can't see a truck-sized hole.
* The problem goes undetected in community review.
I don't know how I could have influenced this outcome.
* Its own author seems to not have an understanding of what
the DIP proposes.
More classy comments. I can't get enough of the way you
belittle people.
I made a 1-word error, where I should have written `short(10)`
to be clear.
1-word error feels amendment-worthy, and not a call for "let's
start
over from scratch".
You should just PR it back to review
I can't do that, it's been rejected, with mostly incorrect rejection
text affixed to the bottom.
with that fix and a note
about how it lowers to statements (incl. an example of
lambdification for if/while/for/switch statements (see
https://forum.dlang.org/post/qysmnatmjquuhylaq...@forum.dlang.org
))
I'm pretty sure that's not necessary. I haven't understood why this
noise about expressions. This DIP applies to statements.
I can't see how there's any problem with the lowering if the statement
is a control statement?
if (ref_fun(10)) { ... }
==>
{
int __tmp = 10;
if (ref_fun(__tmp)) { ... }
}
What's the trouble?
The trouble is major.
Replace "if" with "while":
while (ref_fun(10)) { ... }
==>
{
int __tmp = 10;
while (ref_fun(__tmp)) { ... }
}
That means ref_fun is called with the same lvalue multiple times. In all
likelihood this is not what you want!
A possible retort is: "Of course, while would not be lowered that way,
but a slightly different way!" etc. The point is, ALL OF THAT must be in
the DIP, not assumed obvious or clarified in informal discusson outside
the DIP.
Again: please be thorough, state your assumptions, cover all cases.
