On 4/10/2013 2:28 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 4/10/13 5:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/10/2013 12:43 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Generally it does not, but is it actually not full of holes in this
case? Can
you give a short wrap-up of what the original language design is for type
checking delegate context pointers? We can only guess, because it is not
specified and much of what DMD does there is obviously buggy. In the
end, we'll
be left with three compiler front ends that implement three distinct
competing
designs.
Clearly, delegates should not be able to break purity, const, shared,
etc. Any setup that allows that is broken.
Yah, hence the holes :o). I think it's important to acknowledge that problems in
the language definition exist and problems in the language implementation also
exist. Both are important, but the former are more so because fixing them makes
it possible to fix many of the implementation issues.
My point was that competing designs are very probably not necessary. We just
need to pull on the string on what must be.
