On 11/29/12 2:35 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 17:35:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/29/12 12:07 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 15:23:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 11/29/12 10:17 AM, Max Samukha wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 14:17:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think this entire approach is unprincipled (aside from solving a
problem that's not urgent and not important).
Could you explain how did you determine its urgency and importance
please?
We have solved instances of the problem in the standard library.
Please no more trick questions, thanks.
The standard library does not represent the bulk of D code. Requirements
for client code are different from those for the standard library.
Please don't base your opinion of importance exclusively on the
experience of a limited group of D users.
There are plenty of patterns for solving order of initialization
issues in libraries, known since time immemorial. Requiring a library
initialization call would be the simplest (albeit not the most
elegant). The Monostate and Singleton patterns also come to mind.
We know about singleton/monostate, and it is the initialization call
that we want to avoid. If the patterns worked for us we'd use them.
You can't say that. They do work don't they.
Elegance is important. We came to D for it. Otherwise, we would stick to
the inelegance of other languages. D gave us an opportunity to use
something better but that something tends to break just before the
homestretch.
Totally agreed. But then I look at "shared" and there's really no
comparison in terms of importance and urgency.
Andrei
