On Sunday, September 18, 2016 08:14:47 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d 
wrote:
> On 9/18/16 6:00 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > Yes. That's DIP 82:
> >
> > http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP82
> >
> > I need to go over it again and then introduce it into the new DIP process.
> > But I really think that that's where we should go to fix this problem.
>
> Just a thought: things that we can't do have high priority. Things that
> we can do with a modest cost are much less attractive. Consider:

Is this the biggest issue we have? No. But that doesn't mean that it isn't
important and that it shouldn't be addressed. It just means that it's not
the highest priority and therefore probably not what happens next. But also
consider that implementing this is probably straightforward enough that
someone other than Walter could implement it, and it wouldn't necessarily
have to take away from something more critical like DIP1000. Aside from
approval, I wouldn't expect that this would require Walter. If it were
approved by Walter sometime in the nearish future, then after that, it could
be implemented by any of the compiler devs whenever they could fit it in,
whether that's sooner or later. I'm fairly certain that in this case, the
main problem is the approval and not the implementation.

I fully intend to update the DIP for this and submit it for approval with
the new process. If that needs to wait for some reason, then that's not the
end of the world. But I definitely think that this is a problem that we
should solve and not just write off because we have an ugly workaround.

- Jonathan M Davis

Reply via email to