On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 14:59:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I need to make an amend to this because indeed it's more than 2 std deviations away from niceness: I have a long history of ideas with a poor complexity/usefulness ratio, and I now wish I'd received such a jolt. -- Andrei
I appreciate that, and can accept it in the spirit of mentoring and helpfulness. What might work even better for me, though, is to forego the assumption that I need such a jolt or that you are the person, in this forum at least, to provide it and simply address the merits or lack thereof of the suggestion as made.
If we can't agree that a method, direct or indirect, to control the order of UTs is appropriate, then we should opt for the status quo. By my reading of this thread, that leaves us with no consensus that UTs MUST be order-independent, but that being able to parallelize is a good thing. It seems we can:
1. leave defaults as they are and make parallelization an option, or 2. make it the language model and allow people to dissent with an option
I can agree with Andre that you'd rather have a solid, well-defined language that works in most cases without too many buttons, switches, and levers. I'm just not sure that jives with "easiest is safest" and "don't impose a model, provide a tool." To me, improving the performance of a non-performance-critical aspect does not weigh enough to counterbalance a safety risk and model imposition. How about others?
Test names seems pretty much agreed to. I think the idea of making everything available to the druntime would let pretty much anyone do what they need.
