On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 05:59:09 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 05:29:25 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 05:12:51 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
ABI, at least partly, is and should be part of the spec.
Otherwise it has some of the C++ problems. And the point was
not about ABI in a sense of adding piece of information to
chapter in dlang.org, but about implementing compiler. I am
not enthusiastic about most DIPs presented recently because
1) without Walter and Andrei approval 2) without somebody
willing to implement it, DIP turns to be a paper intellect
exercise and corresponding ideas defence in the forum.
Timon Gehr and I are working on compiler. This isn't
intellectual masturbation.
And without significant usage it is a coding exercise or NIH
syndrome. What is good in the compiler (brand new frontend?)
relative to gdc/ldc/dmd? Why somebody would switch to it?
ldc/gdc/dmd all uses the same frontend. The frontend is not
suitable to build static analysis tools, or any tool in general
(code formater, ide support, repl, anything). It has many quirk,
especially when you start mixing advanced features together.
In general, many people think that D suffer to be too much tied
to one implementation.
As of ABI, it is right now insufficiently defined to have a
situation different than C++'s.
Yes, and this is a problem. But at least it does exists and
covers some aspects.
If I had to specify it, I'd say that context and this parameter
goes as first argument 100% of the time.
The problem is that there is 1 qualifier in current syntax
and two underlying objects.
Exactly. And theses are using different (and opposite) rules
for implicit casts.
The perhaps should we move DIP in that direction too?
I'll edit it tonight.
