On 7/13/14, 9:42 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 16:32:15 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
On Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 12:21:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Yeah, there are many features that could have been implemented as
macros instead of in the language, if D had had them from the beginning.
What's the status of that DIP?
It exists, pretty much all. No proof of concept implementation and no
official approval so far. Community discussion was not really active
either - most likely because it does not seem very realistic to expect
it implemented.
What's the process by which something like that would even get added
to D?
Usually it comes to providing DMD pull request that implements the DIP
and than convincing Walter/Andrei it is worth merging. Most likely
change will still be rejected but without PR chances are close zero.
I'm not sure about that.
The main problem with most of the current DIPs is quality. There seems
to be an implied expectation that once a DIP follows the format
guidelines and has reasonable content, it's implied that it should
receive some sort of official review.
We don't have the resources to do that. What can be expected is that a
DIP should be worked at for a while by its champion(s) along with the
community until it's to a high standard and generally strong (preferably
with a proof-of-concept implementation in tow).
Andrei
